The Influence of Heat Input on the Formation of Fatigue Cracks for High-Strength Steels Resistant to Low Temperatures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- The schematic diagramof welded joint surface show be provided and geometrical parameters should be matked in the schematic diagram, such as toe radius,weld toe angle,weld width,reinforcement height.
- The morphology of welded joint for different experiments sholud be compared.
- The calculation process of the stress concentration factor should be complementedin detail.
- The symbols used throughout the text should be uniform.
- The authors calculated the stress concentration factor according to the formulae proposed by Ushirokawa and Nakayama. How to validate the calculated results?
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We really appreciate the critical reading of our manuscript, and we thank you for all the valuable suggestions. We have carefully considered the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly (parts that have been revised in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow). The responses to the comments are listed one by one as follows (please see below). We are looking forward to hearing about your final decision.
Q1
The schematic diagram of welded joint surface show be provided and geometrical parameters should be marked in the schematic diagram, such as toe radius, weld toe angle, weld width, reinforcement height.
Response: Thank you for your comment and a useful suggestion. Accordingly, the schematic diagram was provided.
Q2
The morphology of welded joint for different experiments should be compared.
Response: Thank you for your comment and a useful suggestion. Accordingly, the morphology of welded joints in different experiments was compared and further discussed.
Q3
The calculation process of the stress concentration factor should be complemented in detail.
Response: Thank you for your comment and a useful suggestion. Accordingly, the calculation process of the stress concentration factor was further discussed.
Q4
The symbols used throughout the text should be uniform.
Response: Thank you for your comment. This part was revised.
Q5
The authors calculated the stress concentration factor according to the formulae proposed by Ushirokawa and Nakayama. How to validate the calculated results?
Response: Thank you for your comment. This part was revised.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has potential but in its current state major revisions are in order for the authors to address the comments detailed below:
Language needs to be polished. Some minor mistakes found.
“Welding is one of the most widely used metal joining techniques. It is commonly used in shipbuilding and construction of bridges, manufacturing oil rigs, pressure vessels, etc”: see also, other applications as in 10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110717 and 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2021.114219 and complement.
“Also, it yields high strength, it can be applied to different materials, and it can be done in any shape and direction”: mainly dependent on the welding technique and materials selection. Revise.
“Fatigue behavior of the welded structures (welded joints) is controlled by several factors, including residual stress, type of loading, local stress concentration, and loading magnitude”: microstructure features of the welded material also play a role. See 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.10.013 and complement.
“g the joint explanation”: explanation?
Do the authors have a overall view of the joints? This is important to see the aspect of the welded material.
Also, what is the cross section looks like? The authors must provide typical cross sections to evaluate for the presence of defects as well as to see the microstructure changes within the fusion zone and heat affected zone.
How was the stress concentration calculation? Unclear. This must be detailed.
Discussion is very short. This needs to be further expanded and correlated with the microstructure (see comments above) and heat input of each weld. Please revise this point carefully.
“The experimental results suggested that higher heat input is associated with a lower risk of developing fatigue cracks”: but what justifies this? The slower cooling rate? Unclear after reading the paper.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We really appreciate the critical reading of our manuscript, and we thank you for all the valuable suggestions. We have carefully considered the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly (parts that have been revised in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow). The responses to the comments are listed one by one as follows (please see below). We are looking forward to hearing about your final decision.
Q1
Language needs to be polished. Some minor mistakes found.
Response: Thank you for your comment. A professional English proofreading company revised the manuscript.
Q2
“Welding is one of the most widely used metal joining techniques. It is commonly used in shipbuilding and construction of bridges, manufacturing oil rigs, pressure vessels, etc”: see also, other applications as in 10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110717 and 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2021.114219 and complement.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Accordingly, an additional reference has been added.
Q3
“Also, it yields high strength, it can be applied to different materials, and it can be done in any shape and direction”: mainly dependent on the welding technique and materials selection. Revise.
Response: Thank you for your comment. This sentence has been revised.
Q4
“Fatigue behaviour of the welded structures (welded joints) is controlled by several factors, including residual stress, type of loading, local stress concentration, and loading magnitude”: microstructure features of the welded material also play a role. See 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.10.013 and complement.
Response: Thank you for your comment and a useful suggestion. Accordingly, the sentence has been revised, and additional references have been added.
Q5
“g the joint explanation”: explanation?
Response: Thank you for your comment. This part was revised.
Q6
Do the authors have an overall view of the joints? This is important to see the aspect of the welded material.
Response: Thank you for your comment. An additional image showing a cross-sectional image of welds with significant geometric data was added to the manuscript.
Q7
Also, what is the cross section looks like? The authors must provide typical cross sections to evaluate for the presence of defects as well as to see the microstructure changes within the fusion zone and heat affected zone.
Response: Thank you for your comment. An additional image showing a cross-sectional image of welds with significant geometric data was added to the manuscript. Cracks are initiated at the site of occurrence of the highest stress concentration (this par was further discussed).
Changes in the microstructure within the fusion zone and heat-affected zone were not the main focus of this paper. However, we plan to investigate this part in our next study.
Q8
How was the stress concentration calculation? Unclear. This must be detailed.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Accordingly, an explanation of how the stress concentration factor was calculated and further discussed.
Q9
Discussion is very short. This needs to be further expanded and correlated with the microstructure (see comments above) and heat input of each weld. Please revise this point carefully.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Accordingly, the discussions section was further improved and revised.
Q10
“The experimental results suggested that higher heat input is associated with a lower risk of developing fatigue cracks”: but what justifies this? The slower cooling rate? Unclear after reading the paper.
Response: Thank you for your comment. An additional explanation has been added.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have gone through this article and found that autors have incorporated all required changes. Hence,this article can be accepted for your journal.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors did a good job in addressing the reviewers comments.
Acceptance is recommended.
