Structural and Behaviour Optimization of Tubular Structures Made of Tailor Welded Blanks by Applying Taguchi and Genetic Algorithms Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Some suggestions can be considered as below.

1. In my opinion, English expression should be improved or this paper can be polished by a native English speaker.

2. Too many active tenses were used in this paper, improving the read difficulties to international readers.

3. figure 2 should be clearer.

4. The data obtained have an accuracy of ± 3%, thus considering that this method 29 can be used successfully in the qualitative and quantitative estimation of dynamically loaded TWB 30 tubular structures.

accuracy of 3% or the error rate is within 3%? Furthermore, please change the active sense in this sentence.

5. Is this method proposed by you or improved by you?

6. I think the abstract section can be shortened and the research backgrounds can be placed in the introduction section.

7. Is the software created by you or your team? (Figure 8)

8. Apart from Figure 18, could you please provide more test results photos? It could be better for providing some photos in the test process.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: In my opinion, English expression should be improved or this paper can be polished by a native English speaker.

 

Response 1: The English language used in this article has been revised and I think I have corrected most of it.

 

Point 2: Too many active tenses were used in this paper, improving the read difficulties to international readers.

 

Response 2: As I mentioned in the previous point, I think I have corrected most of the negative elements in the language used.

 

Point 3: Figure 2 should be clearer.

 

Response 3: Figure 2 was combined with Figure 1, at the suggestion of the other two reviewers of the paper.

 

Point 4: The data obtained have an accuracy of ± 3%, thus considering that this method can be used successfully in the qualitative and quantitative estimation of dynamically loaded TWB tubular structures. Accuracy of 3% or the error rate is within 3%? Furthermore, please change the active sense in this sentence.

 

Response 4: The expression is indeed unfortunate, but it has been corrected.

 

Point 5: Is this method proposed by you or improved by you?

 

Response 5: The optimization methods used in this study are well-established methods and we have not intervened at all on the procedures for their application. However, we have proposed an objective function applicable to tubular structures made from tailored welded blanks.

 

Point 6: I think the abstract section can be shortened and the research backgrounds can be placed in the introduction section.

 

Response 6: The abstract has been revised and the introductory section has been completed according to your suggestions.

 

Point 7: Is the software created by you or your team? (Figure 8)

 

Response 7: The software you refer to is an older version of Design Expert. Thus, we decided that these information would be presented differently in the text of the paper, removing those photos.

 

Point 8: Apart from Figure 18, could you please provide more test results photos? It could be better for providing some photos in the test process.

 

Response 8: We made the suggested additions in terms of presenting the results of the last part of the study.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer Comments for Author

 

 

Titled: Structural and behavior optimization of tubular structures 2 made of tailor welded blanks by applying Taguchi and Genetic 3 Algorithms methods

Journal: applied sciences

Present manuscript presents some new interesting information for readers. However, it has some demerits which can be improved. Hence, this work may be accepted after incorporating following corrections-

1.      The novelty of the work should be highlighted to real physics phenomena in both the introduction and abstract. The idea and the results need more depth.

2.      The discussion is sketchy. It is more graphical presentation of various numerical computation, lacks depth and physical contents. The most important results obtained should be clearly highlighted.

3.      Authors should add latest published papers relevant to the present manuscript.

4.      Express the utilities of work done in the manuscript.

5.      Add the following articles to improve the list of references

 

·         Significance of memory dependent derivative approach for the analysis of thermoelastic damping in micromechanical resonators

 

6.      Modifications in English language are inevitably required throughout the manuscript. 

7.      Numerous grammatical and spelling errors greatly degraded the quality of the presentation.

8.      Write the conclusion more precious.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1: The novelty of the work should be highlighted to real physics phenomena in both the introduction and abstract. The idea and the results need more depth.

 

Response 1: We revised both the abstract and the introduction and made some changes to the text, hoping to improve the content of the paper.

 

Point 2: The discussion is sketchy. It is more graphical presentation of various numerical computation, lacks depth and physical contents. The most important results obtained should be clearly highlighted.

 

Response 2: We made some changes in the presentation of the results highlighting what we considered to be more relevant to the topic.

 

 

Point 3: Authors should add latest published papers relevant to the present manuscript.

 

Response 3: We also worked on updating the references used for the current stage of art in the paper.

 

 

Point 4: Express the utilities of work done in the manuscript.

 

Response 4: The objective of the paper has two valences. On the one hand, the optimization by Taguchi method of the formed TWB U-shaped parts and, on the other hand, the control of the collapse by means of the genetic algorithms of the tubular structures constructed from the TWB U-shaped parts.

 

 

Point 5: Add the following articles to improve the list of references· Significance of memory dependent derivative approach for the analysis of thermoelastic damping in micromechanical resonators.

 

Response 5: I'm afraid the article you suggested doesn't have information related to our proposed topic.

 

Point 6: Modifications in English language are inevitably required throughout the manuscript.

 

Response 6: The English language used in this article has been revised and I think I have corrected most of it.

 

 

Point 7: Numerous grammatical and spelling errors greatly degraded the quality of the presentation.

 

Response 7: As I mentioned in the previous point, I think I have corrected most of the negative elements in the language used.

 

 

Point 8: Write the conclusion more precious.

 

Response 8: We made the suggested additions in terms of presenting the results of the last part of the study.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript: Structural and behavior optimization of tubular structures made of tailor welded blanks by applying Taguchi and Genetic Algorithms methods

In this manuscript, the authors investigated the possibility of optimizing the structural behavior of tubular structures fabricated using the tailored welded blank (TWB) technique. The paper focuses on reducing the negative effects caused by springback of custom welded parts. The proposed method is based on Taguchi methods and genetic algorithms. Through several results, authors proved that their method could be effectively used in predicting the structural behavior of custom welded blanks with tubular structure subjected to dynamic loads.

In reviewer's opinion, the paper can be recommended for publication in Journal of Applied sciences with addressing major revisions as follows:

- In introduction, latest publications (2020-2022) should be added and analyzed

- The introduction should be expanded to present a more in-depth analysis of the latest findings on TWB structures and their innovative use in automotive and aerospace applications.

- In my opinion, it is not necessary to add Figures 1 and 2 in the introduction, as these structures are well known to the scientific community in this field.

- Section 2 should be integrated with the introduction to Section 1 because it is also a state of the art.

- At the end of the introduction, authors should add a brief presentation of their work and the different sections used to achieve their objective.

- In table 1 and 2 authors should write the designation of each material instead of steel 1, steel 2.

- The stress-strain curves plotted in Figure 3 must contain the failure domain not just elastic and plastic domains.

- Table 3, how the anisotropy index r are calculated and with which criteria?

- Looking at the FLD diagrams plotted in Figure 4, it appears that the formability of the TWB structure is reduced compared to homogeneous materials. Is this an advantage for a structure used in a car or aircraft? In addition, what are the explanation for that? Authors should add these explanation to the text.

- Figure 8, 9 and 10 no need to add this print screen from the software.

- For the FEA simulation, authors should add a description of their numerical model (type of elements, contact, …)  with more clear figures.

- The quality of figure 16 should be improved

- The references format should be revised

-References 14, 20, 22, 25, 26 should be replaced by research papers or books or no need to add these references

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Point 1: In introduction, latest publications (2020-2022) should be added and analyzed

 

Response 1: We also worked on updating the references used for the current stage of art in the paper.

 

Point 2: The introduction should be expanded to present a more in-depth analysis of the latest findings on TWB structures and their innovative use in automotive and aerospace applications.

 

Response 2: The abstract has been revised and the introductory section has been completed according to your suggestions.

 

Point 3: In my opinion, it is not necessary to add Figures 1 and 2 in the introduction, as these structures are well known to the scientific community in this field.

 

Response 3: At the suggestion of the other two reviewers we decided to combine the information in figures 1 and 2 into a figure made by us.

 

Point 4: Section 2 should be integrated with the introduction to Section 1 because it is also a state of the art.

 

Response 4: We have made the changes you have suggested regarding the revision of the sections at the beginning of this paper.

 

Point 5: At the end of the introduction, authors should add a brief presentation of their work and the different sections used to achieve their objective.

 

Response 5: As suggested, at the end of the introduction, a brief presentation of the work and the different steps to achieve the paper's objective were added.

 

Point 6: In table 1 and 2 authors should write the designation of each material instead of steel1, steel2.

 

Response 6: At the beginning of the section corresponding to the characterization of the materials used in the study, a reference was made to the trade name of the two steel sheets. Because the name itself is irrelevant, we focused on the chemical characterization of the two materials and their generic naming throughout the paper.

 

Point 7: The stress-strain curves plotted in Figure 3 must contain the failure domain not just elastic and plastic domains.

 

Response 7: In the case of cold plastic forming, any crack in the material is a critical defect, rezistance wize. Therefore, we considered that any representation above the tensile strength is irrelevant to the subject of the paper.

 

Point 8: Table 3, how the anisotropy index r are calculated and with which criteria?

 

Response 8: The anisotropy index r are calculated as the ratio between width real elongation (εw) and thickness real elongation (εt). Actually, this defines the normal anisotropy index r. If the r value is higher than unit denotes a particular behavior of the material: the deformation in width is higher than in thickness. This effect is desired in sheet metal forming.

 

Point 9: Looking at the FLD diagrams plotted in Figure 4, it appears that the formability of the TWB structure is reduced compared to homogeneous materials. Is this an advantage for a structure used in a car or aircraft? In addition, what are the explanation for that? Authors should add these explanation to the text.

 

Response 9: As presented in Figure 3, it appears that the formability of the TWB structure is reduced compared to homogeneous materials. This is largely due to the presence of the weld line which does not have the same forming capabilities due to the thermally affected structure. This is, in fact, the biggest disadvantage of TWB, which is counteracted by the fact that materials with different characteristics can be placed in critical areas of the structure where they are needed most. These areas either need stronger or perhaps lighter materials.

 

Point 10: Figure 8, 9 and 10 no need to add this print screen from the software.

 

Response 10: The figures in question have been removed and the information has been incorporated into the body of the text or displayed in a different form.

 

Point 11: The quality of figure 16 should be improved

 

Response 11: The quality of the noted figure has been improved as suggested.

 

Point 12: The references format should be revised

 

Response 12: The references format was revised as suggested.

 

Point 13: References 14, 20, 22, 25, 26 should be replaced by research papers or books or no need to add these references.

 

Response 13: The references noted were replaced as suggested.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

English expression should be improved in my opinion. 

This is the reason I rejected this paper for publication. 

Author Response

1 - The English expression and style used in this article have been revised and improved. I think I have corrected most of the spelling errors found, and everything is in order.

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript can be accepted in its present form.

Author Response

No changes are required at this round by Reviewer 2.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper now can be accepted for publication

Author Response

No changes are required at this round by Reviewer 3.