An Optimized Dynamic Tensile Impact Test for Characterizing the Behavior of Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Contents: Research presents a new dynamic tensile test based on the Taylor impact technique for the application of metallic materials. This test is useful to characterize the behavior of metallic materials in compression. It allows high strain rates, which shows the importance of current research in future applications. An excellent agreement is found between numerical and experimental results which show the effectiveness of the current research.

I encourage the authors to revise the paper according to my suggestions

(1) Concerning English some minor changes must be made such as spelling check and sentence structure.

(2) References are not enough. It is suggested to cite more relevant and recent literature articles. In addition, recent study articles referencing would allow the authors to provide more precise details on the optimized model used in the proposed dynamic tensile tensile test. For characterizing the behavior of metallic materials.

(3) P11, L217  In summary, compared with the previous target, the optimized target can achieve less strain concentration in the useful zone as mentioned in P5, L126 Lighten the zone where the projectile impacts the target (the top zone).

So, What will be the role of changing the length or thickness of the useful zone where plastic deformation mainly occurs as seen in simulation results in figure 14, a,b

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The aim of this paper is to optimize the shape of the target in the Taylor impact tensile test. Both experiments and numerical simulations have been performed. The experimental and numerical results are consistent. The comparison between revised and previous targets shows an improvement. This paper can be published after addressing the following issues:

1. Page 1, line 5. The abstract should not contain any references. This sentence should be replaced with another descriptive or conclusive sentence without reference.

2. Page 3, line 79. What is the accuracy of your velocity control? Do you simply measure it each time to obtain an answer?

3. Page 3, line 86. It is not clear how the “double V” looks like. It is highly recommended to point out where is the “double V” in Fig. 3. Also, the location of target should also be pointed out clearly in Fig. 3.

4. Please provide units in all figures.

5. Page 4, line 105. Use a more commonly used unit of mass, such as grams or kilograms.

6. Page 5, line 111. Is there any example image of how the image Analyser deals with the deformation and extract the profile of the specimen?

7. Section 2.2. It is highly recommended to show some results by which the author figured out the optimal target. The author listed three guidelines, but none of them are quantitively.

8. Page 8, Table 1. Though it seems easy to guess, the meaning (before test, after test) of two rows of data in each row need to be pointed out.

9. Page 10, Line 191.The meaning of  and  are not indicated.

10. Page 12, line 232. The author indicated that the perfect alignment is important, then how accurate is the alignment in the actual test? And, how to measure to which level the alignment is?

11. Somewhere in the paper, the author should point out clearly which material properties do the impact test measure and how to extract those properties from experimental results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presents an optimized target of the dynamic tensile test for characterizing the behavior of materials. Then the authors validate the optimized target in both experimental tests and numerical simulations. Both experiments and numerical simulations show that the new target can achieve less strain concentration and more substantial deformation.

The paper is well structured. The methodology is described soundly. The validation of the results is also acceptable. In my point of view, the paper could be considered for publication after addressing some minor concerns

1. In the introduction part, the authors should provide more information about the high strain rate experimental methods as well as their advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of the dynamic tension experiments and the SHTB method over other experimental methods should also be addressed.

2. The comparison between the optimized target and the original target is provided by the authors. The authors show that the optimized target can have more substantial deformation in a shorter distance. However, more details may help readers gain a better understanding. For instance, the mass between two targets would be helpful. Meanwhile, I suppose the key point of the experiments is the high strain rate, but the authors do not provide much information about the comparison of strain rates between the two targets. If the authors can provide information like the optimized target can achieve the same strain rate under a lower impact velocity, that would be very useful.

3. In the numerical simulation, the maximum strain appears to be in the middle of the useful zone. However, in the experiments, the cracks are at the bottom of the useful zone (H10 zone). What may cause the differences? Please provide related information.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has made sufficient changes based on my comments. Thank you!