Numerical Study on Welding Residual Stress Distribution of Corrugated Steel Webs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper titled “Numerical Study on Welding Residual Stress Distribution of Corrugated Steel Webs” fits within the scope of the journal. However some revisions are mandatory. 

 

In the following, reviewer’s comments:

 

Together with reference [3], authors could consider the following paper:

Sepe R., Wiebesiek J., Sonsino C.M.Numerical and experimental validation of residual stresses of laser-welded joints and their influence on the fatigue behavior (2020) Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, 43 (6), pp. 1126 – 1141. This paper shows very well the effects of residual stresses on fatigue life. The suggested paper could be considered together with references [4, 5], since it well describes the measurements of residual stresses obtained by hole drilling method.

 

Moreover, the reviewer suggests considering, together with reference [9], the following paper, showing the influence of thermo-mechanical material properties with temperature on residual stresses and distorsions:

Sepe R., Greco A., De Luca A., Caputo F., Berto F. Influence of thermo-mechanical material properties on the structural response of a welded butt-joint by FEM simulation and experimental tests (2021) Forces in Mechanics, 4, art. no. 100018.

 

Authors should improve the introduction considering also other FE modelling techniques.

Sepe R., Giannella V., Greco A., De Luca A. Fem simulation and experimental tests on the smaw welding of a dissimilar t‐joint (2021) Metals, 11 (7), art. no. 1016.

Sepe R., De Luca A., Greco A., Armentani E. Numerical evaluation of temperature fields and residual stresses in butt weld joints and comparison with experimental measurements (2021) Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, 44 (1), pp. 182 - 198.

Sepe, R., Armentani, E., Lamanna, G., Caputo, F. Evaluation by FEM of the influence of the preheating and post-heating treatments on residual stresses in welding (2015) Key Engineering Materials, 627, pp. 93-96.

Armentani, E., Pozzi, A., Sepe, R. Finite-element simulation of temperature fields and residual stresses in butt welded joints and comparison with experimental measurements (2014) ASME 2014 12th Biennial Conference on Engineering Systems Design and Analysis, ESDA 2014, 1.

Armentani, E., Esposito, R., Sepe, R. The influence of thermal properties and preheating on residual stresses in welding (2007) International Journal of Computational Materials Science and Surface Engineering, 1 (2), pp. 146-162.

 

Paragraph 3.1 and Figure 3: The description of welding joint should be improved; moreover, it would be preferable that the authors change the figure 3 with draft of joint with all dimensions. The Figure 3 is not clear in this form.

 

Paragraph 3.1: Authors should give more information about welding process. How many welding passes for each side? Which is the sequence of welding passes? This point should be explain in deep.

 

Figure 4: Authors should increase the size of figure 4.

 

Authors should give more information about FE model: number of nodes and elements, type of elements used in the analyses for each model considered. Moreover the boundary conditions, degree of freedom of each node of element used, and the minimum size of element.

 

Figure 14: Authors should improve the quality and resolution of Figure 14. Moreover, it is recommended the use of markers to identify each curve.

Figures 16 and 17 change “nephogram” with “Contour plot”.

Figures 16 and 17: Why did authors show the von Mises stress in figures 16 and 17? According to reviewer’s opinion, authors should show the longitudinal and transversal (respect to the plate) residual stresses.

Author Response

• Thank you for your professional comments. Please see the attachment for specific modifications

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Metals-1916368

 

The paper is a numerical investigation regarding the welding residual stress distribution in corrugated steel webs for different geometrical configurations. The finite element models are described and the welding residual stresses calculated for the different geometrical configuration are compared.

The subject of this study is interesting, but in my opinion the paper requires an accurate revision according to the following list of items:

1)    The paper must be checked by a native English speaker: there are proofreading services available which the Authors may take advantage. This is important because sometimes it is difficult to follow the technical matter.

2)    Section 3.2: “the radiation heat transfer coefficient is taken as 0.8.”. Please provide definition of the radiation heat transfer coefficient

3)    Figure 7: “Figure 7 compares the simulation and experiment welding pool in reference [27].” There are two problems here: first, there are not quantitative experimental data, therefore validation of the numerical simulation is weak; second, ref [27] is not accessible, therefore the reader cannot appreciate “the good agreement” with the experimental results. This point must be addressed properly.

4)    Section 3.4: “…thermal conductivity, and other parameters.” Which parameters are included in “other parameters”?  please clarify

5)    Section 5.2: this section is too short. The Authors must describe the experimental test, the technique adopted to measure the residual stress, and the processing of the experimental data. In the present form, the experimental validation is largely unconvincing. This point must be addressed accurately.

Author Response

• Thank you for your professional comments. Please see the attachment for specific modifications

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper deals with the ¨Numerical Study on Welding Residual Stress Distribution of Corrugated Steel Webs¨. The manuscript topic is interesting but needs major revision:

1- The writing in English needs revision. Many typos and grammatical errors can be detected in the manuscript.

2- The abstract is not clear and at least needs more details about the test procedure.

3- The introduction needs to be improved. Please focus on the effects of Welding Residual Stress on CSW and the background of numerical modeling. Some pieces of literature are available that were missed in the Introduction.

4- The benefits and drawbacks of this manuscript are not clear. The authors aimed for what they wanted to present, but the problem they wanted to solve.

5- Please remove Fig. 1 from the Introduction. The Figures in the Introduction are proper for books, not research articles.

6- All equations need a reference.

7- The boundary condition and details o meshing, heat transfer, and residual stress equation and calculation must add to the simulation part.

8- The aim of section 2.2. in the manuscript is not clear. Why do authors present section 2.2.? for what?

9- where did you get the results of section 3.2.? Is it from a database (which needs reference), or is it the author's own results?

10- The author should describe the experimental procedure with all details in the manuscript. It is not clear whether they used literature for validation of their results or they did the experimental tests.

11- The structure of the manuscript needs major revision. They mixed results and discussion with the simulation procedure in section 3.3. and 3.4. after that, they report a section with results and discussions. All information and outputs from the simulation are a result, then they should be put in the results section and discussed that. In this form, following the paper is very hard.

12- Discussion of results is weak.

13- The conclusion is very weak and needs major revision to be improved.

Author Response

• Thank you for your professional comments. Please see the attachment for specific modifications

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors addressed all raised comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been revised according to my previous recommendations. Therefore in my opinion the paper is suitable for publication in Metals in its present form.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors addressed all comments. Now, the paper can be published.