Correlation Research between Asymmetry Coefficient of Gondola Car Body and Stress Distribution of Cross Bearer Weld

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Article (Processes-2055067-V1) Title: “Correlation research between asymmetry coefficient of gondola 2 car body and stress distribution of cross bearer weld”.

Although it is generally interesting, there are many present aspects of manuscript that need to be revised before its final acceptance, which are related to presentation and direct technical issues (these should be improved)

Major Comments:

 

1.      The authors claimed in the abstract that the correlation between the stress of cross bearer weld 2 and the positions of the side columns is much higher. The authors should mention the reference or comparison in order to ensure their claim of higher correlation.

2.       Novelty should be mentioned in the abstract.

3.      There should be a space between number and unit. For example, in Section 3.3 Simulation result analysis >>Line 149…. especially appears the pulse mutation at 153mm ……., etc. Please correct it through the paper.

4.      The introduction section is not satisfactory. Refer to the following structure: Give brief basic information about the subject. Do not repeat the same information. Then write a review of the previous studies (it is important to cite recent studies). Define the gap found in the literature and express your study's aim.

5.      English should be improved by a native speaker.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your affirmation of our paper, and thank you for your valuable and thoughtful advice. Next, we will sincerely response your comments one by one.

Comment 1: The authors claimed in the abstract that the correlation between the stress of cross bearer weld 2 and the positions of the side columns is much higher. The authors should mention the reference or comparison in order to ensure their claim of higher correlation.

Response: The abstract has been modified according to your comment.

Comment 2: Novelty should be mentioned in the abstract.

Response: The abstract has been modified according to your comment.

Comment 3: There should be a space between number and unit. For example, in Section 3.3 Simulation result analysis >>Line 149…. especially appears the pulse mutation at 153mm ……., etc. Please correct it through the paper.

Response: Such issues in this paper have been revised throughout.

Comment 4: The introduction section is not satisfactory. Refer to the following structure: Give brief basic information about the subject. Do not repeat the same information. Then write a review of the previous studies (it is important to cite recent studies). Define the gap found in the literature and express your study's aim.

Response: The introduction has been revised and some details have been added, and the literature on the correlation between structural asymmetry and stress is really few.

Comment 5: English should be improved by a native speaker.

Response: The paper has been revised by the English professional.

Once again, thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions which would help us in depth to improve the quality of the paper.

Kind regards,

Wenfei Liu

E-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is at the required level in terms of formality, content and language and will be proposed for publication without further modifications. Congratulations on the eventual publication.

Author Response

Comments to the Author:

The article is at the required level in terms of formality, content and language and will be proposed for publication without further modifications. Congratulations on the eventual publication.

Response: 

Thank you very much for your affirmation of our paper, and thank you for your approval of the article.

We wish you a happy life and work!

 

Kind regards,

Wenfei Liu

E-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript "Correlation research between asymmetry coefficient of gondola car body and stress distribution of cross bearer weld" is original, new and interesting. The authors proposed the concept of asymmetric coefficient and its calculation and the concept of stress distribution cluster. My recommendation is accept as is.

Author Response

Reviewer#3 

Comments to the Author:

The manuscript "Correlation research between asymmetry coefficient of gondola car body and stress distribution of cross bearer weld" is original, new and interesting. The authors proposed the concept of asymmetric coefficient and its calculation and the concept of stress distribution cluster. My recommendation is accept as is.

Response: 

Thank you very much for your affirmation of our paper, and thank you for your approval of the article.

We wish you a happy life and work!

 

Kind regards,

Wenfei Liu

E-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

I have gone through the paper titled "Correlation research between asymmetry coefficient of gondola 2 car body and stress distribution of cross bearer weld". It is an interesting paper dealing with a very practical problem. I have found the paper interesting and novel. But certain change must be made to manuscript to enhance its overall quality. My suggestions below:

1.) The introduction is thin and not a great details of reference to published literature is provide to show that the problem is important and the approach presented in the paper is novel. Novelty needs to be brought out a bit more. May be a section on Novelty or some text/paragraph should help. 

2.) Section 2 starts abruptly without giving much reasoning why their is need to look at asymmetric coefficient of independent variables. It needs to be explained that when the original problem is 3D what is the significance of looking at 2D symmetry ?

3.) Section 3 shows finite element modelling results without any description of what kind of meshing is use how many meshing element what boundary conditions ? what is the novelty is just using FEM, is the code developed inhouse of some standard software suit is used. These details needs to be included. 

4.) Figure 5, 7 and 8 should be enhanced they look blur on pdf and may be need to be provided in better resolution. 

5.) conclusion section do not say why this problem is of interest and what novel outcome have come out of the work. 

6.) Minor English language changes are needed. Some very long sentences are used in conclusion sections. Please consider revising. 

Thanks

Author Response

Thank you very much for your affirmation of our paper, and thank you for your valuable and thoughtful advice. Next, we will sincerely response your comments one by one.

Comment 1: The introduction is thin and not a great details of reference to published literature is provide to show that the problem is important and the approach presented in the paper is novel. Novelty needs to be brought out a bit more. May be a section on Novelty or some text/paragraph should help. 

Response: The introduction has been revised and some details have been added.

Comment 2: Section 2 starts abruptly without giving much reasoning why their is need to look at asymmetric coefficient of independent variables. It needs to be explained that when the original problem is 3D what is the significance of looking at 2D symmetry ?

Response: Relevant content has been added in Section 2.1.

Comment 3: Section 3 shows finite element modelling results without any description of what kind of meshing is use how many meshing element what boundary conditions ? what is the novelty is just using FEM, is the code developed inhouse of some standard software suit is used. These details needs to be included. 

Response: The details of the mesh model and related constraints have been added in Section 3.2.

Comment 4: Figure 5, 7 and 8 should be enhanced they look blur on pdf and may be need to be provided in better resolution. 

Response: Figure 5 to Figure10 are redrawn.

Comment 5: conclusion section do not say why this problem is of interest and what novel outcome have come out of the work. 

Response: The conclusion has been revised.

Comment 6: Minor English language changes are needed. Some very long sentences are used in conclusion sections. Please consider revising. 

Response: The paper has been revised by the English professional, and some very long sentences in conclusion sections have been revised.

 

Once again, thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions which would help us in depth to improve the quality of the paper.

 

Kind regards,

Wenfei Liu

E-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors have studied the relationship between asymmetric structure and stress distribution. The main purpose is to find out the cause of cross bearer welds’ cracks on the general purpose gondola cars.

After a brief introduction in which the authors set out the main objectives of the paper, the theoretical part follows. Standard methods of analysis such as the Pearson correlation coefficient and Finite element analysis are used in the data processing. The analytical results are well presented and the conclusion is consistent with the data presented. Although it does not have very high scientific value, the article could be used for practical purposes and be useful to the readers of the journal. I recommend accepting it.

Author Response

Reviewer#5 

Comments to the Author:

The authors have studied the relationship between asymmetric structure and stress distribution. The main purpose is to find out the cause of cross bearer welds’ cracks on the general purpose gondola cars.

After a brief introduction in which the authors set out the main objectives of the paper, the theoretical part follows. Standard methods of analysis such as the Pearson correlation coefficient and Finite element analysis are used in the data processing. The analytical results are well presented and the conclusion is consistent with the data presented. Although it does not have very high scientific value, the article could be used for practical purposes and be useful to the readers of the journal. I recommend accepting it.

Response: 

Thank you very much for your affirmation of our paper, and thank you for your approval of the article.

We wish you a happy life and work!

 

Kind regards,

Wenfei Liu

E-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors performed well  in the revision and addressed most of the comments.