Determination of Local Stresses and Strains within the Notch Strain Approach: Efficient Implementation of Notch Root Approximations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper deals with the Notch Strain Approach (NSA), also called Local Strain Approach, and more specifically with the handling of notch approximation formuale, recently implemented in the German FKM guideline nonlinear. This sophisticated elastic-plastic Approach can be applied to calculating the fatigue life of engineering components made of metalic matgerials under uniaxial loading. It contains the essence and final output of research activities and case studies made in Germany and worldwide over the past decades, raising this Approach to a very mature level. The basic
The paper contains the authors' original work, which is of high and practical interest. It is well written and understandable. The cited literature is appropriate. The Figures are clear. Considering the quite few number of publications of the "NSA-nonlinear" in English, this paper brings the NSA to a worldwide audience. The paper explains the theoretical background of the NSA very clearly, and deals in detail with the numerical handling of the notch approximation formulae, which is a significant and -in practice- one of the most difficult tasks within the NSA. Clear recommendations regarding the solution of this task are derived for the design engineers and researchers using the NSA-nonlinear. Latter task gives most of the paper's added value, from the scientific point of view.
I recommend the publication of the paper, with only one minor error, that should be corrected: On line 467, the Figure has been enumerated as "5" (which is wrong). It should be enumerated "9".
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I expect authors to put nomenclature at the beginning or at the end of manuscript - it must contain all symbols, markings and abbreviations.
Formula (1) needs improvement - the form is unacceptable.
Figures - authors should keep them in a certain regime. Currently, figures 1-4 have completely different styles - please correct this in the new version of the manuscript.
The record of formulas (10) - (12) raises some doubts. The authors have to change something for the manuscript to be better read. These formulas are presented too chaotically. Please correct it.
Formulas (20) and (21) are also presented too illegibly. Please correct it.
The same applies to the equations in section 3.1. of the paper. This must be changed.
It is a misunderstanding to present equations such as figures - from page 10 of the manuscript - moreover, the authors here again number the figures as 1, 2 etc. In my opinion it is unacceptable and this is how you should not write scientific papers.
I appreciate the authors' workshop, but all mathematical procedures should be limited to the presentation of the initial and final equations, and the method of deriving the latter should be transferred and presented in the appendix. This should be done and the manuscript should be submitted for re-review.
The final figures presenting the results of the authors' work also require a lot of corrections. The font should be standardized, physical units should be written in parentheses, and descriptions should be properly made.
Please be sure to check the numbering of the pictures,
Currently, I do not recommend the work for publication - I suggest major revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
All my suggestions were included by the authors in the revised version of the manuscript. I recommend the paper for publication.
