Crashworthiness Analysis of Square Aluminum Tubes Subjected to Oblique Impact: Experimental and Numerical Study on the Initial Contact Effect
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This submission is quite interesting, however a few points have to be revised before publication:
Fig. 1 is not mentioned in the text.
Fig. 16 shows Mx-moment Resultant, but it is never explained what that means.
There are some English mistakes that have to be corrected.
Author Response
The Authors would like to thank the reviewer for the time devoted to this study.
According to reviewer’s comments, Figure 1 has been mentioned in the text of the subsection “2.1 Examined Test Cases and Specimens”. Also, Figure 16 has been updated properly and the respective text has been rephrased trying to explain better the illustration of the Figure 16 in the subsection “3.3 Deformation Modes”. Regarding the English mistakes, some rephrases have been made in the text trying to improve the English writing.
We hope the reviewer finds our changes to be satisfactory. Thank you very much.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well written and I recommend printing and publishing oand the paper
Author Response
The Authors would like to thank the reviewer for the time devoted to this study and for his/her kind and encouraging comments. Thank you very much.
Reviewer 3 Report
With the proposed work named Crashworthiness analysis of square aluminium tubes subjected to oblique impact: experimental and numerical study on the initial contact effect, the authors make a very interesting work that, in my humble opinion, is well done, well structured, well solved and well written. Once here I must congratulate the authors for their work.
The work treats very well what is indicated in the title of the proposed paper, that is, an experimental and numerical study of thin-walled tubes subjected to both axial and oblique impact loading. The numerical results, almost all of them (it is not an easy question to perform), have a very good correlation with the experimental ones, so the numerical procedure is well done.
In my opinion the work is ready to be published. I haven’t found scientific mistakes or incoherencies. To say something, I dare to give an advice to the authors: to change the name of the angle a by a; at first sight I didn’t understand what was the meaning of tana into equation 8. I think that tana it is better than tana (the same for sena; better than sena).
Dear authors, congratulations for your work.
Kind regards!!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The Authors would like to thank the reviewer for the time devoted to this study and for his/her kind and encouraging comments.
Also, the crushing angle symbol in Eq. 6 and 8 at the subsection “3.5 Initial Contact Effect” has been corrected properly according to reviewer’s comment. Once again, Authors would like to thank deeply the reviewer for his/her valuable comments.
We hope the reviewer finds our changes to be satisfactory. Thank you very much.
Kind regards.
Reviewer 4 Report
The introduction section is a well-writen part and explains the aim of the work.
Eq. 5 need a major explanation in the text. A ratio of an Integrative value over a maximation of a crushing force is not well explained.
The results section is a good agreement between simulation and experiment. Congrats. But in Fig 5b, there is not quite a correlation as an integrative value, because the slopes are different for early displacement, before 40 mm. Please try to explain it in the discussion section. Instead, Figure 7b has the same slopes, then the modelling is good enough.
Figure 19 and comment in line 554 to 556 has a bigger variation for 15 deg, but the text for MCF is not clearly described, please edit this paragraph.
The conclusion is a good section. Congrats again.
Author Response
The Authors would like to thank the reviewer for the time devoted to this study and for his/her kind and encouraging comments.
We would like to inform the reviewer that the text regarding Eq. 5 has been updated properly at subsection “2.4 Crashworthiness Response Parameters” in order to explain better the definition of CFE parameter according to reviewer’s suggestion. Also, the illustration of Figure 5b has been additionally explained at the subsection “3.2 Force-Displacement Characteristics” according to reviewer’s comments. Finally, the paragraph at subsection “3.4 Crushing Angle Effect” has been rephrased properly in order to provide a better explanation regarding MCF and CFE comments as the reviewer suggested for lines 554 to 556 of initial submitted manuscript.
We hope the reviewer finds our changes to be satisfactory. Thank you very much.
