The Influence of Bulging Pressure on Hydraulic Forming of Bimetallic Composite Pipes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses the hydraulic forming of bimetallic composite pipes through finite element simulation, highlighting its industrial relevance. However, it says that significant improvements in clarity, methodological detail, and presentation are necessary for you to consider for publication.
1- The introduction is informative but needs to be less descriptive and should clearly identify the research gap, emphasizing what prior work lacks and what novel contributions your study provides.
2- Shorten repetitive sentences and avoid restating results from references.
3- Provide more explanation on the finite element modeling parameters (element size, meshing strategy, convergence criteria).
4- Clarify how boundary conditions and friction coefficients were determined or validated.
5- The experimental validation is based on a single reference dataset. It is important to address uncertainties or potential errors in the comparison to enhance credibility. If further experimental results are lacking, this limitation should be justified clearly.
6- The manuscript needs significant language editing to correct grammar and improve readability.

Author Response

The paper discusses the hydraulic forming of bimetallic composite pipes through finite element simulation, highlighting its industrial relevance. However, it says that significant improvements in clarity, methodological detail, and presentation are necessary for you to consider for publication.
1- The introduction is informative but needs to be less descriptive and should clearly identify the research gap, emphasizing what prior work lacks and what novel contributions your study provides.

We have made modifications in the introduction section to explain the differences from previous research.
2- Shorten repetitive sentences and avoid restating results from references.

We have made corresponding modifications.
3- Provide more explanation on the finite element modeling parameters (element size, meshing strategy, convergence criteria).

We have already added explanations for the relevant parameters.
4- Clarify how boundary conditions and friction coefficients were determined or validated.

We have added explanations regarding boundary condition settings and the friction coefficient.
5- The experimental validation is based on a single reference dataset. It is important to address uncertainties or potential errors in the comparison to enhance credibility. If further experimental results are lacking, this limitation should be justified clearly.

As mentioned in the text, the hydraulic forming of bimetallic composite tubes is influenced by multiple factors, and improper process parameters can easily lead to defects such as insufficient bonding strength. The finite element method can effectively replace costly trial-and-error experiments, but validation based on a single set of reference data does have limitations, which we have clearly stated in the text.
6- The manuscript needs significant language editing to correct grammar and improve readability.

We have entrusted a professional editing agency to comprehensively optimize the language.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- General comment

In this article, the authors present a study based on finite element models on the influence of bulging pressure on the hydraulic forming of pipes.

For this study, they performed a finite element model and analysed the evolution of several parameters with increasing pressure. Finally, they present the conclusions obtained.

In my opinion, the topic of the article is interesting and may be relevant for future developments.

Given that the study is based on the use of a finite element numerical model, it seems to me that some points should be developed/presented in more detail in order to improve the readability and academic rigor of the study.

I made some comments to improve the quality of the article. I recommend that the authors take these comments into consideration and resubmit it.

 

- Specified comments

Comment 01: “1. Introduction”, 2nd paragraph

It seems to me that some of the references are poorly indicated, in some it seems to me that you indicated the previous or subsequent reference.

Please check and correct.

 

Comment 02: page 2, line 63

Where you cite "A. G. Olabi et al. [13]". Since there are two authors, you should indicate both their names, for example, "Olabi and Alaswad [13]".

 

Comment 03: page 2, line 69 and 72

In this case, you are referencing articles by multiple authors. When there are three or more authors, you should include the name of the first author and then "et al," as is the case with references [14] and [15].

Please check and correct.

 

Comment 04: “2. Establishment of Finite Element Model …”

In my opinion, and given that the study is entirely based on the results obtained through the finite element model, you should present the entire modelling process, defining the various parameters considered and justifying their selection. It's not enough to simply indicate the finite element used and the criterion considered for contact. You should clearly present the model, mentioning the discretization performed, the criterion considered to simulate contact and the parameters involved, justify the choices made for the various parameters considered, whether, or not, the model was calibrated and how it was done, etc.

I believe that including this information is essential for this study to be considered relevant in the academic field.

 

Comment 05: page 6, line 151

Reference [19] does not exist.

Please check and correct.

 

Comment 06: page 6, line 160

The definition of E_b is repeated in the text. It appears in line 157.

 

Comment 07: Figure 11

Figure 11 appears after Figure 12.

The caption for Figure 11 appears on the next page. The figure and its caption should be on the same page.

Please check and correct.

 

Comment 08: “References”

In reference [4] "et al" appears. All authors should be listed in the References, and "et al" should be used throughout the text.

I believe there is a problem with reference [10].

Reference [17] is not cited in the text; all references should be cited.

Author Response

In this article, the authors present a study based on finite element models on the influence of bulging pressure on the hydraulic forming of pipes.

For this study, they performed a finite element model and analysed the evolution of several parameters with increasing pressure. Finally, they present the conclusions obtained.

In my opinion, the topic of the article is interesting and may be relevant for future developments.

Given that the study is based on the use of a finite element numerical model, it seems to me that some points should be developed/presented in more detail in order to improve the readability and academic rigor of the study.

I made some comments to improve the quality of the article. I recommend that the authors take these comments into consideration and resubmit it.

 

- Specified comments     

Comment 01: “1. Introduction”, 2nd paragraph

It seems to me that some of the references are poorly indicated, in some it seems to me that you indicated the previous or subsequent reference.

Please check and correct.

 We have carefully reviewed and incorporated the suggested changes. Thank you.

Comment 02: page 2, line 63

Where you cite "A. G. Olabi et al. [13]". Since there are two authors, you should indicate both their names, for example, "Olabi and Alaswad [13]".

 We would like to thank you for your suggestions. The relevant modifications have been incorporated.

Comment 03: page 2, line 69 and 72

In this case, you are referencing articles by multiple authors. When there are three or more authors, you should include the name of the first author and then "et al," as is the case with references [14] and [15].

Please check and correct.

The amendments have been made in accordance with the specifications.

 

Comment 04: “2. Establishment of Finite Element Model …”

In my opinion, and given that the study is entirely based on the results obtained through the finite element model, you should present the entire modelling process, defining the various parameters considered and justifying their selection. It's not enough to simply indicate the finite element used and the criterion considered for contact. You should clearly present the model, mentioning the discretization performed, the criterion considered to simulate contact and the parameters involved, justify the choices made for the various parameters considered, whether, or not, the model was calibrated and how it was done, etc.

I believe that including this information is essential for this study to be considered relevant in the academic field.

 We sincerely thank the reviewer for this rigorous and constructive comment. We fully agree that a more detailed description of the finite element modeling process is crucial for the reproducibility and academic rigor of this study. Following the suggestion, we have comprehensively revised Chapter 2, "Establishment of the Finite Element Model," to fully elaborate on the entire modeling workflow. We believe these important additions have significantly enhanced the clarity and academic depth of the manuscript. The relevant revisions can be found in the highlighted (yellow-marked) sections of the revised manuscript.

Comment 05: page 6, line 151

Reference [19] does not exist.

Please check and correct.

 The relevant content/section has been removed.

Comment 06: page 6, line 160

The definition of Eb is repeated in the text. It appears in line 157.

 We have removed the redundant content.

Comment 07: Figure 11

Figure 11 appears after Figure 12.

The caption for Figure 11 appears on the next page. The figure and its caption should be on the same page.

Please check and correct.

We have repositioned Figures 11 and 12 to enhance the readability of the manuscript.

Comment 08: “References”

In reference [4] "et al" appears. All authors should be listed in the References, and "et al" should be used throughout the text.

I believe there is a problem with reference [10].

Reference [17] is not cited in the text; all references should be cited.

Upon verification, References [4] and [17] were not cited in the text and have therefore been removed. Reference [10] has been verified and corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- General comment

I am grateful that the authors considered some of my suggestions.

It seems to me that the article is now better, both in terms of information and understanding.

I made a brief comment warning of a possible typo. I recommend that the authors review this comment and resubmit the paper.

 

- Specified comments

Comment 01: page 5, line 165

You're referring to Figure 3, but it doesn't seem to me to be Figure 3.

Please check.

Author Response

Comment 01: page 5, line 165

You're referring to Figure 3, but it doesn't seem to me to be Figure 3.

Please check.

We have made modifications, here is Figure 4

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf