Next Article in Journal
Dataset AqADAPT: Physicochemical Parameters, Vibrio Abundance, and Species Determination in Water Columns of Two Adriatic Sea Aquaculture Sites
Previous Article in Journal
Toward a Spatially Segregated Urban Growth? Austerity, Poverty, and the Demographic Decline of Metropolitan Greece
 
 
Data Descriptor
Peer-Review Record

Manual of GUI Program Governing ABAQUS Simulations of Bar Impact Test for Calibrating Bar Properties, Measured Strain, and Impact Velocity

by Hyunho Shin
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Submission received: 31 January 2023 / Revised: 20 February 2023 / Accepted: 23 February 2023 / Published: 1 March 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript presents a manual procedure and suggests a technical algorithm for ABAQUS simulation dynamic tests using a split Hopkinson bar (SHB) test. The algorithm procedure for the measured data used and implemented in the program is clearly described and the author presents recommendations and alerts to certify the success of the simulation. The paper is suitable, applicable, and hold with the Dada journal requirement. I would recommend that this manuscript be accepted to the Data journal after minor corrections.

1. The literature review should be extended for additional methods for evaluating and testing with SHB / Dynamic loading. For example, The use of IR detectors and/or high-speed camera instead of strain gages.

 2. It is recommended to add a summary and conclusion to the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents Manual of GUI Program Governing ABAQUS Simulations of Bar Impact Test for Calibrating Bar Properties, Measured Strain, and Impact Velocity. The following points need to be clarified for paper to be considered for the publication:

  1. The abstract needs to be revised to accommodate some results.
  2. It is suggested that the authors should modify the last part of the introduction to: 1) clearly mention the importance and novelty of this work, 2) mention the methodology used and its important to place the major hypothesis.
  3. The paper lacks a discussion on the weakness and limitations of the present methodology/study.
  4. Did the authors check the program for different strain rates and impact velocities?
  5. How about the high temperature split Hopkinson tests? Is this applicable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The critics are reasonably addressed. 

Back to TopTop