A Study on Welding Characteristics, Mechanical Properties, and Penetration Depth of T-Joint Thin-Walled Parts for Different TIG Welding Currents: FE Simulation and Experimental Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I have reviewed your paper: "The correlation research on the welding characteristics, mechanical properties and penetration depth of T-joint thin-walled part for TIG: FE simulation analysis and experimental investigation".
It fulfills the aims and scope of Metals. Presened investigations are interesting and worth to be considered for publishing. However, paper needs some improvements. My comments and questions are listed below.
General remarks:
- Please support abstract with the quantitative results.
- Please fill the keywords.
- Please check the style of your paper. In some areas it is out from template.
- The names of paragraph are cunfussing. In "3. Experimental procedure" you showed results. However in the next named "Results and discussion" I cannot find any results. Please improve this issue.
Introduction:
- This section needs modification. You have not described problems of TIG welding of T-joints. One of the biggest problem is angular distortion, which resulted from some issues (parameters, tack weld distribution, welding sequence) - http://casopisi.junis.ni.ac.rs/index.php/FUMechEng/article/view/6362
- You have underline the novelty of your work. Now, it is not well visible.
The materials and structure for T-joint thin-walled parts:
- The name of this section is confusing. I ropose to change it to "Materials and Methods".
- Table 1 - the source of presented values is unknown. Have you alanyzed this content? Or values were taken from standard/manufacturer data? It has to be underlined in the paper.
- Fig. 2 - if these figures were taken from other paper, you should add reference. If not, you should describe the methodology, how you performed these plots, but plots should be presented in the next section "Results...".
Experimental procedure:
- This paragraph requires serious modification. Firstly, you showed some procerure. However, the most of this paragraph are results. It should be separated in different sections.
- Please improve and justify the scale bars. Now, they are hard to observe.
"Results and discussion":
- I cannot find any results here.
- The discussion is very poor. You should compare your results with other scientific papers. It allows to underline the novelty. Moreover, you will be able to underline the biggest advantages from your investigations.
Conclusions:
- Please support conclusions with the quantitative results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Sincerely thank you so much for your review and coments. Our response is in the attachment. Thank you again.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents an analysis of the properties of welded joints in thin sheets made of 6061-T6 aluminum alloy.
The paper may be of some interest to the scientific community. The authors can consider the following aspects:
- The title of the paper is very general and should be customized to the research presented in the paper, given that the entire research concerns the welding of thin sheets made of aluminum alloy 6061-T6;
- The results of the research should be summarized more clearly in the summary;
- Keywords are not specified;
- It must be specified very clearly who ER4043 is and why this type of add-on material was chosen;
- It is necessary to specify the restrictive conditions imposed in the case of the FE analysis;
-It is necessary to explain the decision to take in the analysis the 3 values for the welding current. Anyway, only the analysis of the welding current is not sufficient, if the other parameters of the welding process are not taken into account;;
-In the case of Figure 11, the parameter corresponding to the OY axis must be specified;
- Figure 15 needs to be redone. It must be explained why at a distance of 10-12 mm from the center of the welded joint there are differences in the hardness of the base material depending on the welding current used. Figure 15b needs to be redone because it is not relevant in this form;
- The discussion part must be much developed in order to highlight the novelty brought by the research presented in the paper in relation to other research in the field. In this form, it is not possible to identify the novelty of research compared to previous research;
- Conclusions should be more concrete and future research directions presented.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Sincerely thank you so much for your review and coments. Our response is in the attachment. Thank you again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper has been improved a lot. Now, it could be published.
Best regards,
Reviewer
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors revised their manuscript according to my suggestions. Thus the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
