Strength Prediction of Spherical Electronic Cabins with Pitting Corrosion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The effect of random pitting defects on the buckling of corroded spherical electronic cabins subjected to external pressure is studied.  The geometric model of a spherical cabin with a random pitting defect was established using the code written by the authors.  The authers have studied the effects of the distribution shape, pitting morphology and size of the localized corrosion on the ulti-mate buckling load. 

The authors should written if there is a influence of the dissolution rate of the material inside the pits and local alkalization of the material outside the pits on the buckling of corroded spherical electrnic cabins.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Although the proposed manuscript is interesting, there are enough weaknesses that need to be improved. This based on the following:

 

·        Authors are suggested to modify the title:“Strength Prediction of Spherical Electronic Cabins with  Pitting corrosion” or “Strength Prediction of Spherical Electronic Cabins with localized corrosion”

·        Line 7-16: I consider that the abstract should be reviewed again because it is very general and the objective is not clear.

·        The scope of the study is not well defined, the authors could better express it in the abstract

·        Line 20: The introduction must be enriched because the authors only place paragraphs that have no continuity.

·        Line 85: The objective of the study should be more specific and not so extensive, because it becomes confusing

·        As the results of the mathematical simulation become valid, it is necessary to go deeper into this aspect.

·        In figure 2, it is necessary to separate the word and the number: for example Step 1:....... Step 9:.....

·        In table 3 the pitting morphology is very ideal, the authors should refer to the ASTM G48 standard.

·        The discussion of results must be enriched, only the authors must take into account that when simulation studies are presented they must be well supported by the literature with a validation and even indicate what the percentage of error would be.

·        The values in table 4 are dimensionless or because they do not have units

·        The values in table 6 must include the standard deviation

·        For the analytical calculations, the authors how they made the measurements of the diameter and thickness of the pits, it is important to point out the instrumentation and how they made the pits, spherical, rectangular, elliptical, etc.

·        In the conclusions section, the first paragraph is not a conclusion, it should be deleted.

·        It is recommended that the authors review the conclusions and write them in a specific way.

·        The authors present 35 references.  There is no self-plagiarism.

Authors should review the journal's reference format. For example, journals are abbreviated, authors begin with their last name, etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Revised portion are marked in red in the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made the suggested changes to the manuscript. The article can be accepted for publication.

 

 

In the references the name of the journal must be abbreviated