Residual Stress Properties of the Welded Thick Underwater Spherical Pressure Hull Based on Finite Element Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- The abstract should be modified and the important results of this research should be quantitatively added to it.

- Simulation of the welding process has been done by many researchers over the past years. This article does not have any innovation compared to previous research. The authors should state clearly and clearly what is the difference between this research and previous similar researches?

- Why didn't the authors use subroutine DFILM in the simulations in addition to subroutine DFLUX?

- How have the authors applied the element birth and death technique in the simulations?

- To confirm the simulation results with the experimental results, the authors must use the temperature profile comparison at several points and add it in the article.

- My general opinion about this article:

This article currently lacks innovation and has weaker results compared to similar researches. Therefore, it cannot be accepted in the magazine.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript in its present format is very chaotic. The manuscript should have Introduction, experimental, results and discussion, and conclusions sections. The authors need to reformat their manuscript in these established sections. In its current format, experimental section is distributed all through the manuscript, for example this paragraph: “The welding residual stress was measured using a USGNET ultrasonic stress measurement analyser (Hangzhou Jian Wei Electromechanical Technology)….”

2-     Experimental results are superficial in this manuscript and do support their claims. For example in the conclusion the authors wrote that “(2) During the welding of the plate, the high-temperature zone was concentrated around the weld centreline, and the weld pool was elliptical. The simulated weld morphology was consistent with the experimental results.” However, there are no results of the experimental morphology of the weld.

3-     Experimental section should be improved. Structural observations (optical or electron microscopy images) can be added to the manuscript.

4-     The authors may also report the mechanical properties of the weld and establish a relation between simulation-microstructure-mechanical properties.

5- The conclusions should be shortened.

Minor corrections:

In Fig. 10, the unit for horizontal axis (distance along weld) is MPa!

Fig. 13 should be removed.

There are some typo errors in the manuscript such as “Therefore, the are affected by the electron beam in the present study was small.”

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript can be accepted in the present form.

Author Response

Thanks.

Reviewer 2 Report

I recommend to accept the manuscript.

Author Response

Thanks.