Numerical Analysis of the Perforated Steel Sheets Under Uni-Axial Tensile Force
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First of all, I would like to thanks the authors for their effort. However I have several comments regarding to your manuscript.
(1) Please remove FE Simulation and rewrite the manuscript title, e.g. Numerical analysis of the perforated steel sheets under uni-axial tensile force. Present title may give reader wrong idea about the paper. Furthermore, there are no Finite element investigation, but only the use of the commercial software Ansys.
(2) English language and style are requiring professional proofreading. I have mentioned a good number of grammatical corrections, and there are too many mistakes to list them all here. So I am requesting to use professional English language proofreading.
(3) What do you mean by 'developed FE modelling' in line-16 in
page-1. I fail to find any Finite element modelling/analysis in this
manuscript. The authors must rewrite these not only in the abstract,
but also throughout this paper.
(4) As the main target of this manuscript is numerical study, thereby authors must provide Convergence tests in time, space, and different time schemes in order validate their methodology. This would add value to the admirable work presented in the present manuscript.
(5) It seems that the font size is bigger/smaller on the figure compared to the text (cf. Figure-2, 5,6,7,8,10,16). The authors should be aware of the fact that the font size should be adjusted. Furthermore, The authors should be aware of the resolution of the figure so that they are readable (cf. Figure-6, 7,8,10,11,12,13,14,16). The authors could change colour and figure size to improve the readability. Last but not least, the authors must rearrange the figures-1, 14.
(6) The authors must be aware of the fact that the font size of the equations should be adjusted to the text.
(7) Please move the Table-1 and Table-3 to the appendix, and adjust the Table-2 with the text/page format.
Last but not least, I cannot accept this manuscript at this current condition. I would like to request the authors to rewrite and rearrange the paper according to the journal guideline.
p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
First of all, I would like to thanks the authors for their effort. However, I have several comments regarding to your manuscript.
Point 1: Please remove FE Simulation and rewrite the manuscript title, e.g. Numerical analysis of the perforated steel sheets under uni-axial tensile force. Present title may give reader wrong idea about the paper. Furthermore, there are no Finite element investigation, but only the use of the commercial software Ansys.
Response 1: Thank you for providing the suggestion. The title has been modified, please provide your response for Point 1. (in red)
Point 2: English language and style are requiring professional proofreading. I have mentioned a good number of grammatical corrections, and there are too many mistakes to list them all here. So I am requesting to use professional English language proofreading.
Response 2: Thank you for providing the suggestion. The English expression of the whole paper has been thoroughly edited by an English editor.
Point 3: What do you mean by 'developed FE modelling' in line-16 in page-1. I fail to find any Finite element modelling/analysis in this manuscript. The authors must rewrite these not only in the abstract, but also throughout this paper.
Response 3: Thank you for the hint. The mistakes have been rectified, please provide your response for Point 3. (in red).
In the first case, the author intended the new and advanced versions of the ANSYS analysis programs.
Point 4: As the main target of this manuscript is numerical study, thereby authors must provide Convergence tests in time, space, and different time schemes in order validate their methodology. This would add value to the admirable work presented in the present manuscript.
Response 4: Thank you for the comment. To make sure the results are accurate as they are simulation models. The author compared the results of the experimental test with the results obtained from the simulation in order to ascertain the accuracy of the results before the simulation of the new perforated samples. As can be seen in section “4.1. Experimental Results and Comparison with FE Analysis”.
Point 5: It seems that the font size is bigger/smaller on the figure compared to the text (cf. Figure-2, 5,6,7,8,10,16). The authors should be aware of the fact that the font size should be adjusted. Furthermore, The authors should be aware of the resolution of the figure so that they are readable (cf. Figure-6, 7,8,10,11,12,13,14,16). The authors could change colour and figure size to improve the readability. Last but not least, the authors must rearrange the figures-1, 14.
Response 5: Thank you for the hint. The font size has been modified as shown in all Figures 1 to 15).
Point 6: The authors must be aware of the fact that the font size of the equations should be adjusted to the text.
Response 6: Thank you for the comment. The font size of the equations has been modified by the author and the journal editor.
Point 7: Please move the Table-1 and Table-3 to the appendix, and adjust the Table-2 with the text/page format.
Response 7: Thank you for providing the suggestion. Tables have been modified to conform to the journal format. From the point of view of the author, the existence of tables within the text gives ease to identify the samples and their results and it can even be linked with Figures.
Point 8: Last but not least, I cannot accept this manuscript at this current condition. I would like to request the authors to rewrite and rearrange the paper according to the journal guideline.
Response 8: Thank you for the comment. The paper has arranged according to the journal guideline by the author and the journal editor.
Finally, we do appreciate the valuable comments given by the reviewers that help to improve the presentation of our work.
Thank you in advance for handling our manuscript,
Best wishes
Yours
Corresponding author
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript addresses a FE study on perforated tensile tests.
Although I find in the manuscript some potential for publication, I will reject it in its present form.
The writting is unintelligible throughout the manuscript, including many poorly constructed sentences. The first sentence of the abstract has no conclusion.
The legend in Figure 1 has to be rewritten.
Dedicating a full chapter (chapter 2) for describing "commonsense" stress-strain relationships is unnecessary.
The tensile tests illustrated in Figure 4 appear to have a rather irregular geometry.
In Figure 5, there are two d); also the descriptions "rhombus linearly staggered" and "hexagon linearly staggered" appear to be in the wrong figures.
Table 1 is painfull to watch, and should be reformatted in order to obtain a single line per specimen, also with a smaller text size.
How was the numerical Young modulus obtained? The author says "based on the results of experimental tests".
Also, the numerical modelling is not properly described (which constitutive models were used, and which parameters; FE mesh; etc.)
Figure 14b) is missing
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
The manuscript addresses a FE study on perforated tensile tests. Although I find in the manuscript some potential for publication, I will reject it in its present form.
Point 1: The writing is unintelligible throughout the manuscript, including many poorly constructed sentences. The first sentence of the abstract has no conclusion.
Response 1: Thank you for the comment. The English expression of the whole paper has been thoroughly edited by an English editor. The first sentence of the abstract has been deleted because it does not contain any conclusion, please provide your response for Point 1. (in red)
Point 2: The legend in Figure 1 has to be rewritten.
Response 2: Thank you for the hint. The figure-1 legend was modified, please provide your response for Point 2. (in red)
Point 3: Dedicating a full chapter (chapter 2) for describing "commonsense" stress-strain relationships is unnecessary.
Response 3: Thank you for the hint. Section 2 “Engineering Stress-Strain Relationship “was deleted and the main part of it was added in section 1 “Introduction”, please provide your response for Point 3. (in red).
Point 4: The tensile tests illustrated in Figure 4 appear to have a rather irregular geometry.
Response 4: Thank you for the comment and thank you for this remark accuracy. Actually, there were some irregular parts while taking this picture. But before the tensile test was done, the edges of the samples were emery until they became perfectly regular. Unfortunately, no photos were taken before the test.
Point 5: In Figure 5, there are two d); also the descriptions "rhombus linearly staggered" and "hexagon linearly staggered" appear to be in the wrong figures.
Response 5: Thank you for the hint. The mistakes have been rectified, please provide your response for Point 5. (in red).
Point 6: Table 1 is painfull to watch, and should be reformatted in order to obtain a single line per specimen, also with a smaller text size.
Response 6: Thank you for the comment. The font size and reformatted of Table 1 has been modified by the author and the journal editor.
Point 7: How was the numerical Young modulus obtained? The author says "based on the results of experimental tests".
Response 7: Thank you for the comment. The required modification was added to illustrate that the values were derived from the experiment testing that was done in this research, please provide your response for Point 7. (in red). The problem is that this section 2.2.1 came before section 3.1 “Experimental Results and Comparison with FE Analysis”
Point 8: Also, the numerical modeling is not properly described (which constitutive models were used, and which parameters; FE mesh; etc.).
Response 8: Thank you for the hint. The requested suggestion has been added, please provide your response for Point 8. (in red). SOLID186 elements ANSYS-15 [16] were employed for modeling the steel sheets. This component element has few requirements in addition to the test specimen content of one part so it does not need to contact elements.
Point 9: Figure 14b) is missing.
Response 9: Thank you for the hint. The missing has been added, please provide your response for Point 9. (in red).
Finally, we do appreciate the valuable comments given by the reviewers that help to improve the presentation of our work.
Thank you in advance for handling our manuscript,
Best wishes
Yours
Corresponding author
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a very interesting article where the author studies mechanical properties under tensile defromation of perforated steel sheets by FEM simulation. The research results showed that the geometrical parameters of the holes and their location in the sheet have a certain effect on the strength characteristics of the material. The article is well written and makes a very important contribution to this field of research, therefore the article should be published after correcting the following concerns.
1. Figure 1 should be fixed. Structures should be numbered (a, b, ...) and a caption should be added.
2. Traditionally, the Greeks letter "Sigma" is used to denote the stress.
3. The comparison made in section 4.1 is incorrect. The reviewer proposes to exclude this comparison, leaving only figure 6 with three experimental curves and adding one curve obtained using FEM. A visual comparison is sufficient for these purposes.
4. In the introduction a reference to work [Beygelzimer, Y. , Estrin, Y. and Kulagin, R. (2015), Synthesis of Hybrid Materials by Severe Plastic Deformation: A New Paradigm of SPD Processing. Adv. Eng. Mater., 17: 1853-1861. doi:10.1002/adem.201500083] should be added. In this work a more general way of influence on the tensile curve by creating a special architecture of sheet material is considered.
5. The Author should add in the discussion some comments about the methods of holes producing. There is a sufficient amount of work, where it is shown that the properties of perforated sheets obtained by punching are significantly different from properties of the perforated sheets obtained by cutting.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
This is a very interesting article where the author studies mechanical properties under tensile deformation of perforated steel sheets by FEM simulation. The research results showed that the geometrical parameters of the holes and their location in the sheet have a certain effect on the strength characteristics of the material. The article is well written and makes a very important contribution to this field of research, therefore the article should be published after correcting the following concerns.
Point 1: Figure 1 should be fixed. Structures should be numbered (a, b, ...) and a caption should be added.
Response 1: Thank you for providing the suggestion. The structures have been numbered and this figure has been a caption on in the previous paragraph., please provide your response for Point 1. (in red)
Point 2: Traditionally, the Greeks letter "Sigma" is used to denote the stress.
Response 2: Thank you for the hint. The requested abbreviation has been modified in the entire search.
Point 3: The comparison made in section 4.1 is incorrect. The reviewer proposes to exclude this comparison, leaving only figure 6 with three experimental curves and adding one curve obtained using FEM. A visual comparison is sufficient for these purposes.
Response 3: Thank you for providing the suggestion. For section 4.1, it shows the results of the experimental test and the results obtained from it so that it can be used in numerical analysis. This comparison was made to ascertain the results of numerical analysis and the extent to which they can be used in the analysis process. Without this comparison, the results of numerical analysis cannot be relied on.
Point 4: In the introduction a reference to work [Beygelzimer, Y. , Estrin, Y. and Kulagin, R. (2015), Synthesis of Hybrid Materials by Severe Plastic Deformation: A New Paradigm of SPD Processing. Adv. Eng. Mater., 17: 1853-1861. doi:10.1002/adem.201500083] should be added. In this work, a more general way of influence on the tensile curve by creating a special architecture of sheet material is considered.
Response 4: Thank you for providing the suggestion. The requested reference has been added, please provide your response for Point 4. (in red)
Point 5: The Author should add in the discussion some comments about the methods of holes producing. There is a sufficient amount of work, where it is shown that the properties of perforated sheets obtained by punching are significantly different from properties of the perforated sheets obtained by cutting.
Response 5: Thank you for providing the suggestion. This observation is very important. Because the method of producing perforated has a definite effect on the properties of steel metal. However, in the numerical study, the method of producing perforated cannot be taken into consideration, as the model is represented in the ANSYS program regardless of the method of production. But this will be a new scientific research point.
Finally, we do appreciate the valuable comments given by the reviewers that help to improve the presentation of our work.
Thank you in advance for handling our manuscript,
Best wishes
Yours
Corresponding author
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is generally well organized, and only I have a few necessary changes, mainly
typos, and some minor suggested changes.
The Author should re-size and check the front size of the table 2 according to page size and text font.
It will be more convenient for the reader if the author could put table 1 and 3 on a separate single page.
In figure-8, the author should use high-resolution images so that the colour scales are readable.
The authors should be aware of the fact that the font size should be adjusted. Please adjust the font size in section 'Abbreviations', as well as equations (1), (2), (3), etc. with the other text.
Author Response
The paper is generally well organized, and only I have a few necessary changes, mainly typos, and some minor suggested changes.
Point 1: The Author should re-size and check the font size of table 2 according to page size and text font.
Response 1: Thank you for the hint. Do not worry, the table and font size will be adjusted according to the journal format by the author and the journal editor.
Point 2: It will be more convenient for the reader if the author could put table 1 and 3 on a separate single page.
Response 2: Thank you for providing the suggestion. Tables will be placed in the final format according to the journal template by the journal editor for the best in the presentation.
Point 3: In figure-8, the author should use high-resolution images so that the colour scales are readable.
Response 3: Thank you for the hint. Figure-8 has been modified to be clear, please provide your response for Point 3. (in red).
Point 4: The authors should be aware of the fact that the font size should be adjusted. Please adjust the font size in section 'Abbreviations', as well as equations (1), (2), (3), etc. with the other text.
Response 4: Thank you for the hint. The font size has been modified according to the journal format by the author and editor of the journal, please provide your response for Point 4. (in red).
Finally, thank you for all the comments. We do appreciate the valuable comments given by the reviewers that help to improve the presentation of our work.
Best wishes
Yours
Corresponding author
Reviewer 2 Report
I still reject the publication of this manuscript in Metals. In the reply, the author states that “The English expression of the whole paper has been thoroughly edited by an English editor”. I don’t believe it, because the text is exactly the same as before. I will point out examples from the Abstract and Introduction, with some suggestions for improvement.
Abstract
Line 10: “Because of the presence of these perforated, the characteristics of the steel sheets will change either increase or decrease”. This sentence is poorly written.
Lines 11-12: “This paper aims at studying the conduct stress-strain engineering relationships of the perforated steel sheets.”. Studying the conduct? What does this mean?
Line 13: “… three-dimensional model of finite element (FE) …”. It should be “three-dimensional finite element (FE) model”.
“By using the experimental results done on the solid specimens were used to ensure the 15 accuracy of the FE model”. This sentence is badly written.
Lines 15-16: “Results of simulation testing, the FE modeling revealed the ability to use for calculating the stress-strain engineering relationships of perforated steel sheets”. This sentence is badly written.
Line 18: “… square shape it has no effect on …”. Please remove “it”.
Introduction
Line 28: “… tension coupon…”. What is this?
Lines such 43-46: “… as (load relief or saving in raw materials) or due to architectural (such as inserting some lighting for the place and not blocking the vision through the steel sheets) or to make some filters such as pipes used in wells Ground. Figure 1 illustrates some of the shapes used in perforated steel sheets such as (square, circular, hexagonal and rhombus).”. Remove parenthesis, and include commas where necessary. What are “wells Ground”? “Ground” in uppercase?
Lines 51-52: “Because of the use of this type of steel sheets should be studied engineering characteristics under many variables”. The sentence is badly written.
Lines 53-54: “some research has been done in the shape of one of the perforated sheets [12]”. Which shape the author refers?
Lines 54-55: “The study was done on the steel sheets where the thickness of the steel sheet is less than 5 mm where the steel plates take as a plate if the thickness is greater than 5 mm [1, 13]” The sentence is badly written.
Line 56: “… shapes of perforated…”. Replace by “hole shape” here and when suitable throughout the manuscript (e.g. Line 57 “ the distance between the perforated” should be “the distance between the holes”; Line 58 “distribution of perforated” should be “hole distribution”; Line 58 “the size of the perforated” should be “the hole size”).
Lines 60-62: “The finite-element (FE) modeling as numerical simulations techniques nowadays is widely used in research involving all structural analysis and design especially in the steel structures elements [14, 15].” It should be “Nowadays, FE modeling and simulation techniques are widely used in research involving structural analysis and design, especially of structural steel elements [14, 15]”.
Lines 62-65: “In some research, the techniques of FE modeling are often used to expand the limitations of the experimental testing analysis because of the difficulty of implementation or high cost and used to investigate the different influence parameters which that effect on the problem study.”. It should be written: “In some research, FE modeling techniques are often used to expand the limitations of the experimental testing analysis, because of the difficulty of implementation or high cost, and are also used to investigate…”. I don’t understand what the author meant by “… the different influence parameters which that effect on the problem study”.
Note: in Line 8 there are two plus signs “++”; remove one “+”
Regarding chapter 2.2.1., the author still does not indicate the elastoplastic constitutive model used in numerical simulations. Which yield criterion was used? Which hardening law was used? Which are the values for the constitutive parameters? Also, details regarding the numerical model (symmetry conditions; boundary conditions; loadings; finite-element mesh refinement and mesh sensitivity) of each perforated specimen are missing. A numerical study of this magnitude must indicate this information (at least). Without this critical information, I cannot understand the results presented in the Results and Discussion section. When the title of the paper is "Numerical Analysis of the Perforated Steel Sheets 3 Under Uni-axial Tensile Force", it is mandatory to include a properly described Numerical Modelling and Simulation chapter.
Line 120 “Table 2 also shows the summarizes the mechanical properties…”. This wasn’t edited by the English editor.
Line 124-125: “… the FE simulation is an excellent match can be observed for steel sheets in all engineering properties were considered in the analysis.”. The English editor also skipped this sentence.
The sentence from line 143 to 146 is confusing.
Line 155: “… ascribable to the in the case of …”. Badly written sentence.
Figure 8 is difficult to interpret. Firstly, the color scale should be the same for all specimens. Secondly, the numbers are quite small and should be in MPa. Finally, The stress distributions are difficult to see, because you included the whole specimen geometry. If you include only a section (e.g. ¼) of each specimen, a more detailed view of the stress distributions is obtained.
Author Response
I still reject the publication of this manuscript in Metals. In the reply, the author states that “The English expression of the whole paper has been thoroughly edited by an English editor”. I don’t believe it, because the text is exactly the same as before. I will point out examples from the Abstract and Introduction, with some suggestions for improvement.
Abstract
Point 1: Line 10: “Because of the presence of these perforated, the characteristics of the steel sheets will change either increase or decrease”. This sentence is poorly written.
Response 1: Thank you for the hint. The English expression of the whole paper has been thoroughly edited by an English editor. The sentence has been modified to give a clear meaning, please provide your response for Point 1. (in red). Maybe this English editor who was reviewed English is not efficiently like you are.
Point 2: Lines 11-12: “This paper aims at studying the conduct stress-strain engineering relationships of the perforated steel sheets.”. Studying the conduct? What does this mean?
Response 2: Thank you for the hint. The word has been modified to give a clear meaning, please provide your response for Point 2. (in red).
Point 3: “… three-dimensional model of finite element (FE) …”. It should be “three-dimensional finite element (FE) model”.
Response 3: Thank you for the hint. The sentence has been modified to give a clear meaning, please provide your response for Point 3. (in red).
Point 4: “By using the experimental results done on the solid specimens were used to ensure the 15 accuracy of the FE model”. This sentence is badly written.
Response 4: Thank you for the hint. The sentence has been modified to give a clear meaning, please provide your response for Point 4. (in red).
Point 5: Lines 15-16: “Results of simulation testing, the FE modeling revealed the ability to use for calculating the stress-strain engineering relationships of perforated steel sheets”. This sentence is badly written.
Response 5: Thank you for the hint. The sentence has been modified to give a clear meaning, please provide your response for Point 5. (in red).
Point 6: Line 18: “… square shape it has no effect on …”. Please remove “it”.
Response 6: Thank you for the hint. The word has been deleted, please provide your response for Point 6. (in red).
Introduction
Point 7: Line 28: “… tension coupon…”. What is this?
Response 7: Thank you for the hint. The word has been modified to give a clear meaning, please provide your response for Point 7. (in red). ( “ coupon = specimen”)
Point 8: Lines such 43-46: “… as (load relief or saving in raw materials) or due to architectural (such as inserting some lighting for the place and not blocking the vision through the steel sheets) or to make some filters such as pipes used in wells Ground. Figure 1 illustrates some of the shapes used in perforated steel sheets such as (square, circular, hexagonal and rhombus).”. Remove parenthesis, and include commas where necessary. What are “wells Ground”? “Ground” in uppercase?
Response 8: Thank you for the hint. The sentence has been modified to give a clear meaning, please provide your response for Point 8. (in red).
Point 9: Lines 51-52: “Because of the use of this type of steel sheets should be studied engineering characteristics under many variables”. The sentence is badly written.
Response 9: Thank you for the hint. The sentence has been modified to give a clear meaning, please provide your response for Point 9. (in red).
Point 10: Lines 53-54: “some research has been done in the shape of one of the perforated sheets [12]”. Which shape the author refers?
Response 10: Thank you for the hint. The shape is circular, which has been studied. The sentence has been modified to give a clear meaning, please provide your response for Point 10. (in red).
Point 11: Lines 54-55: “The study was done on the steel sheets where the thickness of the steel sheet is less than 5 mm where the steel plates take as a plate if the thickness is greater than 5 mm [1, 13]” The sentence is badly written.
Response 11: Thank you for the hint. The sentence has been modified to give a clear meaning, please provide your response for Point 11. (in red).
Point 12: Line 56: “… shapes of perforated…”. Replace by “hole shape” here and when suitable throughout the manuscript (e.g. Line 57 “ the distance between the perforated” should be “the distance between the holes”; Line 58 “distribution of perforated” should be “hole distribution”; Line 58 “the size of the perforated” should be “the hole size”).
Response 12: Thank you for the hint. The sentence has been modified to give a clear meaning, please provide your response for Point 12. (in red).
Point 13: Lines 60-62: “The finite-element (FE) modeling as numerical simulations techniques nowadays is widely used in research involving all structural analysis and design especially in the steel structures elements [14, 15].” It should be “Nowadays, FE modeling and simulation techniques are widely used in research involving structural analysis and design, especially of structural steel elements [14, 15]”.
Response 13: Thank you for the hint. The sentence has been modified as suggested, please provide your response for Point 13. (in red).
Point 14: Lines 62-65: “In some research, the techniques of FE modeling are often used to expand the limitations of the experimental testing analysis because of the difficulty of implementation or high cost and used to investigate the different influence parameters which that effect on the problem study.”. It should be written: “In some research, FE modeling techniques are often used to expand the limitations of the experimental testing analysis, because of the difficulty of implementation or high cost, and are also used to investigate…”. I don’t understand what the author meant by “… the different influence parameters which that effect on the problem study”.
Response 14: Thank you for the hint. The sentence has been modified as suggested, please provide your response for Point 14. (in red).
Point 15: Note: in Line 8 there are two plus signs “++”; remove one “+”
Response 15: Thank you for the hint. The error has been modified, please provide your response for Point 15. (in red).
Point 16: Regarding chapter 2.2.1., the author still does not indicate the elastoplastic constitutive model used in numerical simulations. Which yield criterion was used? Which hardening law was used? Which are the values for the constitutive parameters? Also, details regarding the numerical model (symmetry conditions; boundary conditions; loadings; finite-element mesh refinement and mesh sensitivity) of each perforated specimen are missing. A numerical study of this magnitude must indicate this information (at least). Without this critical information, I cannot understand the results presented in the Results and Discussion section. When the title of the paper is "Numerical Analysis of the Perforated Steel Sheets 3 Under Uni-axial Tensile Force", it is mandatory to include a properly described Numerical Modelling and Simulation chapter.
Response 16: Thank you for the hint. In the section “2.2-Numerical Test Specimens “ There are the data required for modeling and there are also some references that can help more in understanding the models. The specimens were full dimensions and not have symmetry conditions and the element mesh has been added, please provide your response for Point 16. (in red).
Point 17: Line 120 “Table 2 also shows the summarizes the mechanical properties…”. This wasn’t edited by the English editor.
Response 17: Thank you for the hint. The sentence has been modified to give a clear meaning, please provide your response for Point 17. (in red).
Point 18: Line 124-125: “… the FE simulation is an excellent match can be observed for steel sheets in all engineering properties were considered in the analysis.”. The English editor also skipped this sentence.
Response 18: Thank you for the hint. The sentence has been modified to give a clear meaning, please provide your response for Point 18. (in red).
Point 19: The sentence from line 143 to 146 is confusing.
Response 19: Thank you for the hint. The sentence has been modified to give a clear meaning, please provide your response for Point 19. (in red).
Point 20: Line 155: “… ascribable to the in the case of …”. Badly written sentence.
Response 20: Thank you for the hint. The sentence has been modified to give a clear meaning, please provide your response for Point 20. (in red).
Point 21: Figure 8 is difficult to interpret. Firstly, the color scale should be the same for all specimens. Secondly, the numbers are quite small and should be in MPa. Finally, The stress distributions are difficult to see, because you included the whole specimen geometry. If you include only a section (e.g. ¼) of each specimen, a more detailed view of the stress distributions is obtained.
Response 21: Thank you for the hint. Figure-8 has been modified to be clear, please provide your response for Point 21. (in red).
Finally, thank you for all the comments. We do appreciate the valuable comments given by the reviewers that help to improve the presentation of our work.
Best wishes
Yours
Corresponding author
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept in present form
Author Response
Accept in present form
Thank you for the comment. Finally, we do appreciate the valuable comments given by the reviewers that help to improve the presentation of our work.
Best wishes
Yours
Corresponding author
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
