Study on Explosion Welding of Titanium–Aluminum Laminated Plates with Different Explosive Charges
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
In general, this is an interesting article that discusses the explosion welding process. However, please address the following issues:
- At the end of the Introduction, you should add more information about the manufacturing process for lamination plates, not just the explosive method.
- In all sections, you need to add more references, especially concerning the lamination plate and explosion welding process.
- This article includes a simulation step, so please also provide a detailed discussion about the meshing and boundary conditions. (Please add a figure showing the meshing and the boundary condition setting method.)
- Figure 1: please explain the locations labeled 1, 2, 3…55.
- The information in section 2.2 and Figure 2: were these referred from other research, or are they your results? If they are referred from other research, please add references.
- Line 157: what is the definition of charge heights? You should add a figure to explain this parameter.
- Section 3.2: the experimental boundary conditions need to be described and discussed clearly. Please add this information.
- Figures 11-13 are not clear; please improve these figures.
- This manuscript has two main parts: simulation and experimental. The discussion for each part is good, but the authors should add a comparison of the results of the simulation and experiment (especially concerning the results in Figures 11-13).
Sincerely yours,
Author Response
Comments 1:At the end of the Introduction, you should add more information about the manufacturing process for lamination plates, not just the explosive method.
Response 1:Thank you for pointing this out.In response to this issue, I have added selection of key parameters during the manufacturing process.this change can be found in lines 77 to 84 on the second page.
Comments 2:In all sections, you need to add more references, especially concerning the lamination plate and explosion welding process.
Response 2:Thank you for pointing this out.I have added references in various sections.
Comments 3:This article includes a simulation step, so please also provide a detailed discussion about the meshing and boundary conditions. (Please add a figure showing the meshing and the boundary condition setting method.)
Response 3:Thank you for pointing this out.The SPH method is mainly composed of tiny particles without a grid. The particle size and boundary conditions used in the simulation are modified on lines 99 to 101 of the third page.
Comments 4:Figure 1: please explain the locations labeled 1, 2, 3…55.
Response 4:Thank you for pointing this out.The observation point locations have been modified on lines 100 to 103 of the second page.
Comments 5:The information in section 2.2 and Figure 2: were these referred from other research, or are they your results? If they are referred from other research, please add references.
Response 5:The welding window in the diagram is computed and plotted by the author.
Comments 6:Line 157: what is the definition of charge heights? You should add a figure to explain this parameter.
Response 6:Thank you for pointing this out.I have provided a re-interpretation on lines 174 to 177 of page five.
Comments 7:Section 3.2: the experimental boundary conditions need to be described and discussed clearly. Please add this information.
Response 7:Thank you for pointing this out.I have added a discussion of boundary conditions from line 325 to 340 on page 10.
Comments 8:Figures 11-13 are not clear; please improve these figures.
Response 8:Thank you for pointing this out.I have made the modifications to this section.
Comments 9:This manuscript has two main parts: simulation and experimental. The discussion for each part is good, but the authors should add a comparison of the results of the simulation and experiment (especially concerning the results in Figures 11-13).
Response 9:Thank you for pointing this out.I have added a comparison analysis between simulation and experiment on page 13.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors did good work, even though the following updates or corrections must be made before further consideration.
1. The authors should clarify the novelty of their study compared to existing works on explosion welding of titanium-aluminium composites.
2. The justification for selecting specific explosive charge heights (20mm, 24mm, 28mm) could be elaborated with more context on their practical relevance.
3. The description of the weldability window lacks detailed experimental validation; the authors should support this with additional data or references.
4. The methodology section does not specify the number of repetitions for each experimental condition; adding this would improve reliability.
5. Discuss the impact of varying explosive material properties, such as density and detonation velocity, on the results.
6. The authors should compare their findings with similar simulation studies using different numerical methods to validate the SPH method's accuracy.
7. The authors should include quantitative metrics (e.g., bonding strength, microhardness) to substantiate claims about the optimal explosive height.
8. The bonding interface analysis should explicitly address the observed defects, such as cracks and voids, and their implications on the composite's performance.
9. Provide a more comprehensive discussion on the implications of their findings for industrial applications, including scalability.
10. The authors should address whether their experimental design considers the environmental and safety implications of explosive welding.
11. More detailed analysis of the intermetallic compounds formed at the bonding interface, supported by EDS results, would enhance the study's value.
12. The authors should elaborate on the observed differences between simulation and experimental results and provide possible reasons for these discrepancies.
13. The figures, such as those showing bonding interfaces, would benefit from clearer annotations to highlight critical features.
14. The authors should discuss the potential influence of plate thickness variations on the observed trends and outcomes.
15. The simulation results should explore sensitivity analyses for key parameters like spacing between plates and explosive properties.
16. The authors should provide a clear definition of key terms like "over-melted zone" and "vortex-like eddies" for broader audience comprehension.
17. The use of self-citations appears substantial; the authors should ensure they are relevant and balanced with broader references.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language requires moderate correction.
Author Response
Comments 1:The authors should clarify the novelty of their study compared to existing works on explosion welding of titanium-aluminium composites.
Response 1:Thank you for pointing this out.The author have added some innovative points from line 71 to line 81 on page two.
Comments 2:The justification for selecting specific explosive charge heights (20mm, 24mm, 28mm) could be elaborated with more context on their practical relevance.
Response 2:Thank you for pointing this out.The author provides a more detailed explanation from line 186 to line 190 on page 5.
Comments 3: The description of the weldability window lacks detailed experimental validation; the authors should support this with additional data or references.
Response 3:Thank you for pointing this out.The author added some literature materials to the weldability window determination.
Comments 4: The methodology section does not specify the number of repetitions for each experimental condition; adding this would improve reliability.
Response 4:Thank you for pointing this out.The author specified the number of experimental replicates from line 190 to line 192 on page 5.
Comments 5: Discuss the impact of varying explosive material properties, such as density and detonation velocity, on the results.
Response 5:Thank you for pointing this out.The author made revisions to lines 333 to 337 on page 10.
Comments 6: The authors should compare their findings with similar simulation studies using different numerical methods to validate the SPH method's accuracy.
Response 6:Thank you for pointing this out.The author discussed the accuracy of the SPH method from line 63 to line 71 on the second page.
Comments 7: The authors should include quantitative metrics (e.g., bonding strength, microhardness) to substantiate claims about the optimal explosive height.
Response 7:Thank you for pointing this out.The author added quantitative index tests on pages 11 and 12.
Comments 8: The bonding interface analysis should explicitly address the observed defects, such as cracks and voids, and their implications on the composite's performance.
Response 8:Thank you for pointing this out.The author discussed this issue in lines 249 to 252 and 258 to 264 on page 7, as well as in lines 419 to 426 on page 13.
Comments 9:Provide a more comprehensive discussion on the implications of their findings for industrial applications, including scalability.
Response 9:Thank you for pointing this out.The author made modifications to address this issue in lines 441 to 447 on page 14.
Comments 10: The authors should address whether their experimental design considers the environmental and safety implications of explosive welding.
Response 10:Thank you for pointing this out.The author made modifications to address this issue in lines 325 to 340 on page 10.
Comments 11:More detailed analysis of the intermetallic compounds formed at the bonding interface, supported by EDS results, would enhance the study's value.
Response 11:Thank you for pointing this out.The author analyzed intermetallic compounds in lines 428 to 433 on page 14.
Comments 12: The authors should elaborate on the observed differences between simulation and experimental results and provide possible reasons for these discrepancies.
Response 12:Thank you for pointing this out.The author addressed the issue in lines 403 to 412 on page 13, and included a study on differences.
Comments 13:The figures, such as those showing bonding interfaces, would benefit from clearer annotations to highlight critical features.
Response 13:Thank you for pointing this out.The author added some annotations to the images.
Comments 14: The authors should discuss the potential influence of plate thickness variations on the observed trends and outcomes.
Response 14:Thank you for pointing this out.The author explained the variation in plate thickness from line 447 to line 456 on page 14.
Comments 15: The simulation results should explore sensitivity analyses for key parameters like spacing between plates and explosive properties.
Response 15:Thank you for pointing this out.The author has added an analysis of the spacing between the panels on pages nine and ten.
Comments 16:The authors should provide a clear definition of key terms like "over-melted zone" and "vortex-like eddies" for broader audience comprehension.
Response 16:Thank you for pointing this out.The author provided explanations for these terms on pages 3 and 7.
Comments 17:The use of self-citations appears substantial; the authors should ensure they are relevant and balanced with broader references.
Response 17:Thank you for pointing this out.The author decreased the self-citation rate.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you very much for your careful modifications. In general, this paper is acceptable for publication upon addressing the following minor issues:
- Increase the size of Figures 4, 6, 8, 9, 10-12, and 16.
- Double-check grammar and formatting.
Sincerely yours,
Author Response
Comments 1:Increase the size of Figures 4, 6, 8, 9, 10-12, and 16.
Response 1:The author has increased the size of the images.
Comments 2:Double-check grammar and formatting.
Response 2:Thank you for your constructive criticism and feedback, I will continue to make further corrections to my sentence structure and grammar.I appreciate your efforts, thank you.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors incorporated all the suggested corrections, and this article can be considered further.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language used in this article is fair.
Author Response
Comment 1: The author has integrated all the suggested corrections and the paper can be considered further.
Response 1: Thank you for your constructive criticism and feedback, I will continue to make further corrections to my sentence structure and grammar. I appreciate your efforts, thank you.
