Corrosion-Fatigue Analysis of High-Strength Steel Wire by Experiment and the Numerical Simulation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall the manuscript is decent in terms of its presentation and quality, despite this there remains several improvements that can be made.
Figure 3: The photo quality here is terrible, if you are trying to model the geometric stress concentration factor in Abaqus based on typical photos of corrosion pitting, they need to be much higher quality.
Table 3: The reviewer suggests that the author presents the modelled vs. experimental life in the form of a x-y plot similar to Figure 15 in (10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.06.015)
Fig 6. The author states that corrosion pits were randomly generated within the mesh using a Python script in Abaqus, yet the image shows only one singular corrosion pit in the 12 o'clock position. Figure 6 would be a great location to show a detailed example of one of the meshes that was used with this statistically representative mesh that captures the ramdomized nature of the corrosion pits.
Conclusion #2 is very weak, and does not bring any new conclusions that were not stated in #1, the mere fact that you modelled the effect of corrosion on the fatigue life does not justify the importance of the aformentioned "coupling" effect,
Author Response
First of all, thanks to the editors and reviewers for reviewing this article. Revise the article as following in accordance with the comments of the Editor and Reviewers. The revised parts of the article are marked in yellow. The grammar and expression of the article have been revised.
Reviewer 1
Question 1. Figure 3: The photo quality here is terrible, if you are trying to model the geometric stress concentration factor in Abaqus based on typical photos of corrosion pitting, they need to be much higher quality.
Response: Limited by experimental equipment, I do not have a high-definition camera to obtain high-quality pictures. But the implementation method in Abaqus will be described in detail in the third question. Thank you for your valuable comments
Question 2. Table 3: The reviewer suggests that the author presents the modelled vs. experimental life in the form of a x-y plot similar to Figure 15 in (10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.06.015)
Response: Figure 15 in 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.06.015 shows the Correlation between experimental life and predicted life for the loading paths A, B, C, D, and E for the forged material. But it does not apply to this article. In this paper, the error comparison diagram is given. Thank you for your valuable comments.
Question 3.Fig 6. The author states that corrosion pits were randomly generated within the mesh using a Python script in Abaqus, yet the image shows only one singular corrosion pit in the 12 o'clock position. Figure 6 would be a great location to show a detailed example of one of the meshes that was used with this statistically representative mesh that captures the randomized nature of the corrosion pits.
Response: The number and radius of corrosion pits were determined by experimental statistical methods. The corresponding model is established through a random simulation method. See the yellow shading part of the article for specific modifications. Thank you for your valuable comments.
Question 4.Conclusion #2 is very weak and does not bring any new conclusions that were not stated in #1, the mere fact that you modeled the effect of corrosion on the fatigue life does not justify the importance of the aforementioned "coupling" effect,
Response: Conclusion #2 is revised. Thank you for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have studied the effect of corrosion on fatigue life of high strength steel by experiments. They have also developed numerical models of corrosion-fatigue damage accumulation and implemented in ABAQUS.
The results are interesting. I have few questions:
- At low stress-range, the effect of corrosion is prominent. The authors need to put a little more explanation on this. Is it that at high stress range, there was not enough time for corrosion to cause damage?
- In the model, coupling effect of corrosion and fatigue was considered, hence, authors claimed, model results were conservative compared to experimental data. Why would there be no coupling effect in reality? How did the authors know that there was no coupling effect on fatigue life?
- There are lots of grammatical error. The paper needs to be carefully reviewed. In some places of the paper, the explanation is not very clear.
Author Response
First of all, thanks to the editors and reviewers for reviewing this article. Revise the article as following in accordance with the comments of Editor and Reviewers. The revised parts of the article are marked in yellow. The grammar and expression of the article have been revised.
Reviewer 2
Question 1. At low stress-range, the effect of corrosion is prominent. The authors need to put a little more explanation on this. Is it that at high stress range, there was not enough time for corrosion to cause damage?
Response: In the low stress-range, corrosion will reduce the nominal fatigue strength, which is equivalent to increasing the fatigue stress. In the high-stress range, fatigue stress is much higher than the nominal fatigue strength, so corrosion has little effect on fatigue in the high-stress range. Thank you for your valuable comments.
Question 2. In the model, coupling effect of corrosion and fatigue was considered, hence, authors claimed, model results were conservative compared to experimental data. Why would there be no coupling effect in reality? How did the authors know that there was no coupling effect on fatigue life?
Response: The test in this paper is a fatigue test with pre-corrosion steel wire, and there is no corrosion effect during the fatigue test. Thank you for your valuable comments.
Question 3:There are lots of grammatical errors. The paper needs to be carefully reviewed. In some places of the paper, the explanation is not very clear.
Response: The article has modified the wrong grammar and expression accordingly.Thank you for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is well written and the topic is interesting for a possible publication in metals journal. Some modification according to the reviewer’s suggestions/comments are required.
The introduction is so poor and a state of research in corrosion-fatigue issue is required. There are a lot of missing references, here only an example:
DOI: 10.1007/s13296-018-0189-5
DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.43.06
DOI: 10.1016/j.prostr.2017.07.020
DOI: 10.1016/j.prostr.2017.07.189
In the introduction the novelty of the research must be stressed.
Specimen preparation, testing procedure, testing measured variables, corrosion test..must be deeply explained and/or extended
Numerical model: A description of the numerical model is required: Which element the authors have used? What is the mesh properties? The damage model that the authors have used is mesh depended, how the authors have defined the element dimension? Have the authors found solution localization problems?
Conclusion must be extended
Author Response
First of all, thanks to the editors and reviewers for reviewing this article. Revise the article as following in accordance with the comments of Editor and Reviewers. The revised parts of the article are marked in yellow. The grammar and expression of the article have been revised.
Reviewer 3
Question 1. The introduction is so poor and a state of research in corrosion-fatigue issue is required. There are a lot of missing references, here only an example:
DOI: 10.1007/s13296-018-0189-5
DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.43.06
DOI: 10.1016/j.prostr.2017.07.020
DOI: 10.1016/j.prostr.2017.07.189
In the introduction the novelty of the research must be stressed.
Response: The example references and other references are added in the paper. The novelty of the research is stressed. Thank you for your valuable comments.
Question 2.Specimen preparation, testing procedure, testing measured variables, corrosion test..must be deeply explained and/or extended.
Response: The experiment has been extended. Thank you for your valuable comments.
Question 3. Numerical model: A description of the numerical model is required: Which element the authors have used? What is the mesh properties? The damage model that the authors have used is mesh depended, how the authors have defined the element dimension? Have the authors found solution localization problems?
Response: I have made corresponding additions in the article. Thank you for your valuable comments.
Question 4. Conclusion must be extended
Response: The conclusion is extended in the paper. Thank you for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have satisfactorily responded to my comments. Thanks.
Reviewer 3 Report
In the current version of the manuscript the authors have considered all my suggestions
