Improved Coil Design for Magnetic Pulse Welding of Metallic Sheets
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your manuscript.
I think the manuscript is well written and shines light on several important aspects of the Magnetic Pulse Welding for dissimilar metal sheets joined by O-shaped coil. While the information provided in the manuscript is of greater significance, I have few questions/concerns/comments/recommendations.
1. It would be recommended to elaborate the introduction section including the application of MPW in real life for dissimilar metal sheets and how adapting this technology is better from economic point of view.
2. When it comes to mechanical characteristics of the joint, it appears that only lap shear tests are conducted. Only few lines (264-268) cover those results. I recommend to elaborate on these results. Also, what other mechanical tests are applicable for MPWed dissimilar sheets?
3. With this sudden impact between flyer and target, would strain hardening be a concern for softer or harder materials as chosen in this study?
4. I think an appendix with all the variables and symbols could be beneficial for the reader.
5. Why is this collision velocity higher than the impact velocity? In general, if we were to conserve the momentum, the velocity of flyer and target should be less than the impact velocity at any given time? Please explain.
6. Please insert a scale in the figure 11.
I have few more comments in the pdf (attached along with this review).
Thank you
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We are grateful for the valuable comments from the reviewers. Our response (in blue) to the reviewer’s comments (in black) are presented in the attached document. The revised contents in the manuscript are also highlighted in blue.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, the magnetic pulse welding was improved and applied. The research is very interesting. However, minor repairs are needed.
1. The abstract and conclusions could be polished and improved.
2. The morphology of the tear failure should be enlarged.
Author Response
We are grateful for the valuable comments from the reviewers. Our response (in blue) to the reviewer’s comments (in black) are presented in the attached document. The revised contents in the manuscript are also highlighted in blue.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for submitting the manuscript. I have posted my comments below.
This work is a continuation of the published research in the field of MPW. One fundamental question arises as to the actual geometry of the joint: figure 10 shows the effect of the process carried out in the form of surface changes (oxidation). How does the cross-sectional area of a connection actually change? My guess is that its dimension is smaller than the temperature field that leads to changes on the surface - in this case the whole analysis in chapter 4.3 is imprecise.
In addition:
- The abstract should give an account of the purpose of the study, the methods and tools used, and the conclusions of the study, without giving too much background.
- In Table 2, carbon appears twice.
- How was the chemical composition measured (tables 1 & 2)?
- Some of the abbreviations "Fig" are not ended with a period.
- Manufacturer details necessary (name, country, city) for ANSYS & MATLAB
Author Response
We are grateful for the valuable comments from the reviewers. Our response (in blue) to the reviewer’s comments (in black) are presented in the attached document. The revised contents in the manuscript are also highlighted in blue.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for your reply.
Ad. 1. Thus, the caption of Figure 10 should inform the reader that a fracture is observed in the area of the weld, and not the surface of the sheet after the welding process has been performed.
Ad. 2. The required changes to the abstract are not visible.
Ad. 4. This information should be included in the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
See below for the implemented changes based on your comments.
Major comment #1: AD1 (answer 1, round 1) Thus, the caption of Figure 10 should inform the reader that a fracture is observed in the area of the weld, and not the surface of the sheet after the welding process has been performed.
Answer: Thank you. We have revised the caption of Figure 11 as follows.
"Welded sample obtained with an O-shaped coil (a) before and (b) after lap shear testing. The fracture near the periphery of the weld which has emerged during lap shear testing, is shown in detail for a better clarity. The AA5182 sheet is cracked near the weld. "
Major comment #2: AD2 (answer 2, round 1) The required changes to the abstract are not visible.
Answer: The revisions in the article were initially done using ”track changes”. All track changes have been accepted in order to clean the document (many changes). The most important changes in the abstract have been highlighted in blue.
Major comment #3: AD4 (ans. 4, round 1) This information should be included in the manuscript.
Answer: The details are now mentioned in the manuscript.
We sincerely hope that our revised manuscript will now be in line with the recommendations.
Sincerely,
Koen Faes (Communicating Author)
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Ad1. My comment was about figure 10, not 11 - the proposed shape from Figure 9b results from the observation of the surfaces shown in Figure 10. Am I mistaken?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
There was indeed a mistake from our side; we assumed that the comment was about fig. 11.
We have changed the caption of Fig. 10 into : "Ring-shaped annular elliptical weld profiles obtained with an O-shaped flat coil. Annular grey region is indicating the fracture surface after complete separation of the flyer and target sheets during peel testing. Process conditions: applied energy - (a) 10, (b-c) 13 and (d) 16 kJ; standoff distance - (a, b) 1.2, (c, d) 2.4 mm; flyer sheet - AA5182, target sheet - DC04 steel."
I hope it is clear now.
Regards,
Koen
