Assessing the Crashworthiness Analysis on Frontal and Corner Impacts of Vehicle on Street Poles Using FEA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My main concern about the paper is the use of English language,  grammatical mistakes and broken sentences appear here and there along the whole manuscript. Some of the mistakes are indicated on the text file (pdf) attached.

The paper must be read for language syntax, wording and corrected by possibly a native language editor.

The authors make a large strain, large deformation analysis using nonlinear material models.  Such analyses can suffer a lot from mesh size, particularly at contact surfaces. This point should be discussed in the paper with regard to some sensitivity analyses of mesh size to be included in the results. The types of elements must be pictorially shown and some technical information (number of nodes, degrees of freedom, large strain, etc) must be added to the text. 

The conclusions are rather limited, this part can be extended by a few more interpretations of the results. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The required corrections for the paper were made

 

Many thank for the reviewer comment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript presents a numerical crashworthiness investigation of frontal and corner impacts of cars on street poles, which matches the scope of the Journal. It contains some new and interesting results, which can be valuable to researchers in the industry and academia. There are however following issues to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication on the journal:

1)      Lines 231-235: The approach replacing Al-5052 with Al-6061 with higher yielding strength (~ 60% higher) will significantly affect the results and should be justified properly. Should the shell and the interior components be modelled with different material models?

2)      Values for displacement after fracture in Table 2 should be explained properly. Should these values be dependent on the size of the component, not a material property?

3)      Has mesh density study been carried out for the simulation? 7850 elements (line 269) seem a bit low for the assembly of many components.

4)      Incomplete sentence on line 293.

5)      Lines 316-318: The claim that increasing the thickness of the aluminium pole will further reduce the risk of injury may not be true. The change of the stiffness of the pole will change the interactions between the car and the pole and affect the SEA of the pole material.

6)      The diameter values quoted on line 345 are not correct. The results are not comparable if the diameter of the pole is different. Same comment applies to subsequent comparison and validation under other conditions: the key parameters need to be comparable.

7)      Some statements in the conclusions should be checked and revised to be more accurate. For example, ‘the street pole absorbs all the car’s kinetic energy’ on lines 441-442 can’t be true.

8)      The manuscript should be proof-read to minimise typos and grammatical errors such as:

·       ‘the street pole is based out of aluminium’ on line 116 should be ‘the street pole is made of aluminium alloys’.

·       ‘this project’ in Section 2.2 should be ‘this paper’.

·       What is ‘this journal’ on line 126?

·       Why 3.13 on line 193?

·       ‘to be model’ should be ‘to be modelled’ on line 194.

·       ‘extensively built extensively’ should be ‘extensively built’ on line 196.

Author Response

The required corrections for the paper were made

 

Many thank for the reviewer comment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed my comments satisfactorily and I recommend the manuscript to be published on the journal.