Study on the Localization of Defects in Typical Steel Butt Welds Considering the Effect of Residual Stress
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your manuscript.
While the manuscript contains significant information, it lacks the basic understanding for the reader. Since the references are not sufficient in number, it is extremely hard to keep track of all the scientific information in context to the text.
The sentences are overwhelmingly long and are not really related with the the sentences before. Please revise the abstract and include a results and discussion section in your manuscript.
Several figures are missing a unit on the corresponding axis and the scales are also missing in few figures.
I have highlighted some of my comments in the pdf attached but in my opinion the manuscripts needs to be rewritten with cohesive sentences.
Thank you.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I liked this article. My knowledge of butt welding is dated, so I checked the assumed heat transfer coefficients -which fully checked out.
My only criticism is with the claim that ultrasound is the same as physical results. The authors are encouraged to metallurgically section the welds and look for corroborating defect distributions and weld surface features before claiming that the theory and experiments check out. The evidence is not comprehensive.
Someone more knowledgeable in the field should also confirm the magnetic dipole calculations and the value of the constants in Equation 9. This article will benefit from a nomenclature.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Review report: Study on the localization of defects in typical steel butt welds considering the effect of residual Stress. Work is presented well with good publishing quality and can be accepted after the following minor corrections:
1. The abstract section is very lengthy. Remove initial lines which are unnecessarily added.
2. Discuss the novelty and application of the work.
3. Shorten the length of the introduction section and add key published work and try to make a bridge between current and previous published work. Refer paper published in the area of residual stresses and distortion and also about their significance: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-016-6007-z; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2022.104715.
4. Add reference for each equation.
5. Discussion about model is incomplete. Add detail about nodes, elements and boundary conditions.
6. Results presented completely based on simulation. Try to validate it with previous published work or from experimental work.
7. Also add technical discussion related to variation in residual stresses.
8. Add the phase transformation role on residual stresses in the present investigation: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12540-020-00921-4.
9. Shorten the length of the conclusion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for incorporating my comments and suggestions. I still think that that some of the sentences are unnecessarily long and should be revised.
Other than that I am in agreement with other reviewers.
Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
Accepted.
