Contact Pressure Distribution and Pressure Correction Methods of Bolted Joints under Mixed-Mode Loading
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have read the research article entitled "Contact Pressure Distribution and Pressure Correction Methods of Bolted Joints under Mixed-Mode Loading" which is an interesting analysis of work carried out. The submission contains comprehensive experimental data and reasonable discussions. In addition, the paper is well organized. I think it can be published after some major revisions:
1- The English language needs improvement. In many cases, the statements are not clear enough and should be modified into the research language.
2- The abstract section must be improved. It is too simple.
3- The number of keywords must be increased.
4- The introduction is too simple and short. The introduction part needs to be restructured to highlight the need for research.
5- In general, the “Discussion section” was presented simply without a deep investigation into obtained outcomes. You must provide more academic and reasonable explanations with respect to your obtain data.
6- A concise and factual conclusion section is required. The conclusion should be written by presenting key observations and findings from this work.
7- In the reference section, the paper should cite papers published recently.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is of interesting topic but probably just for a minority of Coatings' readers.
The results are only supprorted by an numerical simulation which is always problematic. However it can be understood taht for the given problem experimental data are hard to obtain.
I recommend to improve typing mistakes in the text (there are many, like on line 37, 42, 87 and so on). Please check Greek and math characters, too (line 158 and so). Some indexes in Figures are hard to read whern printed (starting from Figure 1),
The paper includes Discussion, which is nice but there should be also actual Conclusions which should clearly state the limits of use of the proposed method.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The present paper investigated the behavior of joints. It is a good paper. It can be suggested for publication after the revision.
1- Add at least a photo of the investigated joints. There is not any photo of the investigated joints.
2- Validation of the present model cannot be seen in this paper. How is the present model validated?
3- The bellow paper investigated the joints coated with FRP under different loadings. Also, the contact was modeled in the joints. They should be cited and discussed.
- Static capacity of tubular X-joints reinforced with fiber reinforced polymer subjected to compressive load. Engineering Structures, 236, (2021) p.112041.
- Local joint flexibility of tubular T/Y-joints retrofitted with GFRP under in-plane bending moment. Marine Structures, 77, (2021) p.102936.
- Stress concentration factors in tubular T/Y-joints strengthened with FRP subjected to compressive load in offshore structures. International Journal of Fatigue, 140, (2020) p.105719.
- SCFs in tubular X-connections retrofitted with FRP under in-plane bending load. Composite Structures, 274, (2021) p.114314.
4- In Figure 4, “CPRESS” is used. But it is not explained in the text of the paper. Please explain it.
5- Line 325, “The analysis results in this paper can be used” is better to write “The present analysis results can be used”.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is ready for publication.
