An Improved Nonlinear Cumulative Damage Model Considering the Influence of Load Sequence and Its Experimental Verification
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Abstract, Keywords and Introductions it is wriitten "multi-level", but in praktice (3 materials analisis in paper) in the paper we have two-lewels blcks. So it is incorected
- the introductions are very pure. It is necessery to put also others papers in this subject
- Figure 1 is not clear. Plaese improved it
- Figure 2 is not necessery - please cut it
- Figure 3 is not intersting. We may put in this place only the area of fracture
- Table 2 loading amltude 1100 MPa and life time )??!!. I think that Authors write about static - it is 1/2 cycle!!
- p.8. It is written σ1 and σ2 - that are amplitude. Please write it
- l.204 - n1 plase write as index 1
- References are written uncorected. Please write Surname N. in all references as in [1, 3, 4]. Others are not corrected
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1:Abstract, Keywords and Introductions it is wriitten "multi-level", but in praktice (3 materials analisis in paper) in the paper we have two-lewels blcks. So it is incorected.
Response 1: Your opinion is correct. In the experiment, we carried out two-stage loading and then extended it to multi-stage loading. The manuscript has been revised in accordance with your comments.
Point 2: The introductions are very pure. It is necessery to put also others papers in this subject
Response 2: Thank you for your helpful comment,the introduction has been revised based on your comment. The added content is from line 56 to line64.
Point 3:Figure 1 is not clear. Plaese improved it
Response 3:The resolution of Figure 1 has been improved based on your comment.
Point 4:Figure 2 is not necessery - please cut it
Response 4:According to your comment, Figure 2 has been deleted.
Point 5:Figure 3 is not intersting. We may put in this place only the area of fracture
Response 5:Thank you for your valuable comment,a picture of the fracture zone has been added to Figure 3.
Point 6:Table 2 loading amltude 1100 MPa and life time )??!!. I think that Authors write about static - it is 1/2 cycle!!
Response 6:Your opinion is correct. The manuscript has been revised in accordance with your comment.
Point 7:p.8. It is written σ1 and σ2 - that are amplitude. Please write it
Response 7:They have been defined in the nomenclature.(l.30,l.31)
Point 8:l.204 - n1 plase write as index 1
Response 8:It has been modified in the manuscript according to your comment.
Point 9:References are written uncorected. Please write Surname N.in all references as in [1, 3, 4]. Others are not corrected
Response 9:Thank you for your helpful comment, the references have been revised in the manuscript as per your request.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presents an interesting contribution of the nonlinear cumulative damage model considering the influence of load sequence with experimental verification. Author have successfully demonstrated the fatigue test data with the proposed model.
Authors should be revised as below:
1) Fig. 1 is not acceptable
2) Fig. 10, 11,12,13,14,15 are not acceptable resolution for title of axis
3) There are a lot of errata in manuscript Authors should be modified whole words.
4) Authors use a large number of abbreviation in the paper, It should be added nomenclature chapter before introduction
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1:Fig. 1 is not acceptable
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comment, the resolution of Figure 1 has been improved in the manuscript.
Point 2: Fig. 10, 11,12,13,14,15 are not acceptable resolution for title of axis
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comment, the resolution has been improved.
Point 3:There are a lot of errata in manuscript Authors should be modified whole words.
Response 3:Thank you for your helpful comment,punctuation in the manuscript has been checked and revised.
Point 4:Authors use a large number of abbreviation in the paper, It should be added nomenclature chapter before introduction
Response 4:Thank you for your valuable comment, the nomenclature chapter has been added.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
- Nomenclatures must be written in alfabetic order
- Fig. 4. The minimum value on axis is 0. But log 0.5 = -0.301. It should be used logarithmic scal but not logarytmic value. 0 is not minimum!!
- The introduction is poor still. Putting only paper [11] is to small. Please read same others paper and wroite same sentences in the text. Please see papers of exapmle of: Taheri, Vincent, Yuan, Li, Huang, Kurek, Lagoda, Aeran, Biezma, Benkabouche, Guechichi, Anes,
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1:Nomenclatures must be written in alfabetic order
Response 1: Thank you for your helpful comment,the nomenclatures has been revised.
Point 2: Fig. 4. The minimum value on axis is 0. But log 0.5 = -0.301. It should be used logarithmic scal but not logarytmic value. 0 is not minimum!!
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comment. It is my fault. I forgot to update Figure 4. after making changes based on your comments in the previous version. Figure 4 has now been updated based on your suggestions.
Point 3:The introduction is poor still. Putting only paper [11] is to small. Please read same others paper and wroite same sentences in the text. Please see papers of exapmle of: Taheri, Vincent, Yuan, Li, Huang, Kurek, Lagoda, Aeran, Biezma, Benkabouche, Guechichi, Anes,
Response 3:Thank you for your valuable comment.Based on your suggestions, I have studied the articles of several authors you provided. The introduction has been revised in my manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
