Experimental Studies on the Strength of a Flatcar during Shunting Impacts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.      The writing logic is very poor, the references in the introduction is briefly stated. Please revised them.

2.      The lots of the detail information in numerical simulation are missing. For example,

        i.          which equivalent way is used to deal with the wilding seams?

       ii.          Where is the display drawings of the simulation model with the tetrahedrons elements?

      iii.          Has a mesh sensitivity analysis been done to ensure the accuracy of simulation results?

     iv.          What is the reasoning behind the maximum displacements 12.1 mm? and also the admissible values by 17%?

 

3.      What is that the paper of the titled “ program and methods used for tests on the bearing structure of a flat car” ? Is it a Master's thesis? Or Ph.D. thesis? Or scientific paper?  Please clearly stated?  After then, if the detail experimental process is presented in the paper pf the titled, you need brief description in the manuscript, is not detail description.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

The team of authors would like to thank you for your interest in our work and for your comments, which certainly improved this article.

Regarding your remarks, we would like to note the following.

1. The writing logic is very poor, the references in the introduction is briefly stated. Please revised them.

We tried to improve the logic of the article, as well as painted specific references in the literature review.

All corrections in the text of the article were highlighted in green.

2 The lots of the detail information in numerical simulation are missing. For example,

which equivalent way is used to deal with the wilding seams?

The model does not contain welding seams. It was created as a monolith (detail). Initially, the authors created it as an assembly based on the album of drawings of this car, and then they created a part from the assembly.

3 Where is the display drawings of the simulation model with the tetrahedrons elements?

The authors have presented a finite element model of the supporting structure of the platform car

4 Has a mesh sensitivity analysis been done to ensure the accuracy of simulation results?

The authors used the graphic-analytical method. The method was based on a graphical (geometric) representation of admissible solutions and the objective function of the problem. The essence of the method in solving this problem is to build a dependence of the maximum equivalent stresses on the number of finite elements. When this dependence began to be described by a horizontal line, that was the optimum number of finite elements.

5 What is the reasoning behind the maximum displacements 12.1 mm? and also the admissible values by 17%?

This value of displacement is due to the fact that the model was fixed by the pads, and the middle part of the flatcar frame was loaded with vertical force from the containers. Permissible stresses of the supporting structure of the platform car are taken equal to the yield strength of the structural material, i.e. 345 MPa. With this in mind, the calculated stresses exceed them by 17%.

6 What is that the paper of the titled “ program and methods used for tests on the bearing structure of a flat car” ? Is it a Master's thesis? Or Ph.D. thesis? Or scientific paper?  Please clearly stated?  After then, if the detail experimental process is presented in the paper pf the titled, you need brief description in the manuscript, is not detail description.

This document was developed by a team of authors and agreed with the Filia “Research and Design and Technological Institute of Railway Transport” of the Joint-Stock Company “Ukrzaliznytsia”. In accordance with it, tests were carried out. Since it is not in the public domain, the authors cited the features of testing in accordance with this document in the article.

We hope that we correctly understood your comments and took them into account.

Please review the article again.

Best Regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is entitled “Experimental studies on the strength of a flat car during shunting impacts”. The research deals with the strength of the bearing structure of a flat car during shunting impacts with the finite element method. A 13-401 flat car modernized with fixed fittings for securing containers on the frame was used as the prototype. In this case, the idea and results of the paper are interesting but the following comments can be utilized to improve this paper in future.

 

Line34-37: Authors must provide references for all paragraphs in the sections of introduction and literature review.

Line 38-48: same comment as prior one.

Line 48-50: same comment as prior one.

Line 51-125: it must be rewrite and make it more clear.

General: Authors did not follow from the general standard of paper writing. For example: “In study [19] the authors presented the” is not correct. The correct one is “e.g. Fomin et al. [19] described ……” Authors must follow from such standards or others to write their paper. Introduction must be writing again.

General: Introduction must be separate from literature review. Otherwise, it must be extend by describing more recent research which are relevant to the objective of the research.

General: at the end of the introduction, the main objective and related research question must be provided.

Table 1: It seems to be that this table is not important. Authors must consider it Again.

Figure 2: it must be addressed in the text. Authors must consider it for all figure and table within all the manuscript.

Conclusion: All the important result must be described in the conclusion.

 

 

 

Final decision: The idea and objective of this paper are interesting. The structure of the paper is not suitable. This paper is appropriate for publication after major review. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

The team of authors would like to thank you for your interest in our work and for your comments, which certainly improved this article.

Regarding your remarks, we would like to note the following.

1. Line34-37: Authors must provide references for all paragraphs in the sections of introduction and literature review.

Line 38-48: same comment as prior one.

Line 48-50: same comment as prior one.

Line 51-125: it must be rewrite and make it more clear.

The authors have included links in the text where they should be present.

All corrections are highlighted in green.

2. General: Authors did not follow from the general standard of paper writing. For example: “In study [19] the authors presented the” is not correct. The correct one is “e.g. Fomin et al. [19] described ……” Authors must follow from such standards or others to write their paper. Introduction must be writing again.

All corrections are highlighted in green.

3. General: Introduction must be separate from literature review. Otherwise, it must be extend by describing more recent research which are relevant to the objective of the research.

The authors took into account this remark

4. General: at the end of the introduction, the main objective and related research question must be provided.

The authors took into account this remark

5. Table 1: It seems to be that this table is not important. Authors must consider it Again.

The authors deleted table 1

6. Figure 2: it must be addressed in the text. Authors must consider it for all figure and table within all the manuscript.

The authors have provided a link to Fig. 2 in the text of the article and described it.

7. Conclusion: All the important result must be described in the conclusion.

The authors corrected the conclusions

We hope that we correctly understood your comments and took them into account.

Please review the article again.

Best Regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All the questions have been solved. the paper can be accepted.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all requested comments. The manuscript is suitable for publication.