Next Article in Journal
Impact of Pile Punching on Adjacent Piles: Insights from a 3D Coupled SPH-FEM Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Flow-Based Anatomy of Bobbin Friction-Stirred Weld; AA6082-T6 Aluminium Plate and Analogue Plasticine Model
Open AccessReview
Peer-Review Record

Spherical Cavity Expansion Approach for the Study of Rigid-Penetrator’s Impact Problems

Appl. Mech. 2020, 1(1), 20-46; https://doi.org/10.3390/applmech1010003
by 1,*,† and 2,†
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Mech. 2020, 1(1), 20-46; https://doi.org/10.3390/applmech1010003
Received: 13 December 2019 / Revised: 24 January 2020 / Accepted: 27 January 2020 / Published: 5 February 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments are provided in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please, see the attachment, Section 1. Reviwer 1

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is to understand the penetration of a rigid body into a target material, and an extensive theoretical approach with the comparison to the hydro-code simulation/other theories is present.

This paper is well structured and a significant portion of the paper is about the literature review, and it gave me an impression that I am reading a graduation thesis...or it may be just my own impression...

It seems the theory itself is not considered the wave or shock propagation during the penetration (or impact), and the theory is somewhat dependent on the empirical constants.  In addition, there are lack of information regarding the dynamic materials properties...(i.e. density, wave speed, etc, or it maybe not easy to attain)  However, the comparison results to the hydrocode simulation (where the shock propagation, dynamic materials properties are heavily involved) looks more than ideal. Without knowing the details of the hydrocode simulation input parameters (i.e. EOS, constitutive equations, strength/damage models, etc), it may not be easy to understand such results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please, see the attachment Section 2. Reviewer 2

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the authors have not highlighted the changes in the manuscript, they have addressed all issues pointed out by this reviewer. Therefore, the publication of the corrected manuscript is recommended.

Back to TopTop