An Optimal Selection of the Clamping Fixture for Manufacturing an I-Shaped Composite Beam
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The authors responded to the comments of the reviewers and modified some things such as the title that indeed needed modification. The overall impression remains the same, it is a good simulation campaign, still without a validation and , for some, can be a routine industrial exercise. The reviewer has nothing to add or to comment and accept the publication in terms of soundness of the work, hoping to ,at least, raise the interest of the FE modeling community.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
1. The description of "The analysis also reveals that the reduction of the clamping 12 space does not contribute to that of the vibration" in the abstract. Once again, is this description correct? The reviewer still disagrees this description.
2. Why is the classification of this paper changed from "case report" to "article"? The reviewer disagrees this change. This change is not fair.
When author proofreading, "a I-shaped" in title >>> "an I-shaped"
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The subject of this research is the analysis of the manufacturing process of I-beam made of fiber composite material. The authors used modal analysis to study the method of fixing I-beams its effect on the generated translations. The subject of the research is described quite extensively, moreover, supported by relevant graphics, it forms a whole, thoroughly explaining the investigated models. The obtained conclusions are presented in a logical and coherent manner for the reader. However, some parts of the proposed manuscript need improvement:
- In Table 7, the unit of strain should be dimensionless (wrong designation in brackets)
- The diagram in Figure 1 is unreadable, selected boxes overlap, this should be corrected
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The subject of this research is the analysis of the manufacturing process of I-beam made of fiber composite material. The authors used modal analysis to study the method of fixing I-beams its effect on the generated translations. The subject of the research is described quite extensively, moreover, supported by relevant graphics, it forms a whole, thoroughly explaining the investigated models. The obtained conclusions are presented in a logical and coherent manner for the reader. However, some parts of the proposed manuscript need improvement:
Thank you very much for your comments.
- In Table 7, the unit of strain should be dimensionless (wrong designation in brackets)
Thank you very much for your corrections. We modified it.
- The diagram in Figure 1 is unreadable, selected boxes overlap, this should be corrected
Thank you so much for your comments. We changed it to a picture.
Reviewer 2 Report
The present work shows some points that have a certain interest. But, overall, it can also be considered as a general exercise that is not validated experimentally. This fact creates a problem: the work is about a methodology implemented to a specific case study that is not validated at all. Therefore, the first point is to support somehow the decisions behind the simulation strategy in terms of results credibility. Also this will facilitate the work of the reviewer towards the acceptance of the present work. It is a pity, it is a quite good modeling attempt without strong support to, at least, accept that the results we see are actually valid.
Secondly, the reviewer strongly suggests to improve the quality of all the images of the Appendix, especially the 1st one that is a simple Flow chart that is made in PowerPoint in a very user-beginner manner. Also the images from the FE software are quite low quality and, this way they fail to add the value they supposed to.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The present work shows some points that have a certain interest. But, overall, it can also be considered as a general exercise that is not validated experimentally. This fact creates a problem: the work is about a methodology implemented to a specific case study that is not validated at all. Therefore, the first point is to support somehow the decisions behind the simulation strategy in terms of results credibility. Also this will facilitate the work of the reviewer towards the acceptance of the present work. It is a pity, it is a quite good modeling attempt without strong support to, at least, accept that the results we see are actually valid.
Thank you so much for your comments. We mainly use the theory---load transfer and another reference [15] to confirm the reliability of the results in this paper.
Secondly, the reviewer strongly suggests to improve the quality of all the images of the Appendix, especially the 1st one that is a simple Flow chart that is made in PowerPoint in a very user-beginner manner. Also the images from the FE software are quite low quality and, this way they fail to add the value they supposed to.
Thank you so much for your comments. We changed Fig. 1 to a picture. The other images come from the commercial software, so we are not convenient to modify.
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, the influence of the different clamping zones of a web on the vibration of an I-shaped composite beams is addressed.
[1] The type of this paper is “case report”. This submitted case report is a simple engineering report simulated with the commercial finite element method (FEM) software and does not include any theoretical/technological improvements to the manufacturing process of I-shaped composite beams.
[2] The authors present the following abstract of this paper.
“The analysis also reveals that the reduction of the clamping space does not contribute to that of the vibration.”
This abstract is wrong. The clamping space is one of the most important effects on the vibration behavior of a structure, such as span length, end constraint, material properties and cross-section properties, etc.
The reviewer disagrees this abstract. If this abstract is correct, the word of “optimal” in the title is meaningless.
The reviewer is discouraged from publishing this case report in this journal.
PS: The word “reduction” above is incorrect. It should be “increase”, because the optimization purpose is to increase, not redction, the frequencies during manufacturing through the controlling the clamping zone.
(End)
Extensive editing of English language is required.
Author Response
Reviewer 3:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In this paper, the influence of the different clamping zones of a web on the vibration of an I-shaped composite beams is addressed.
Thank you so much for your comments.
[1] The type of this paper is “case report”. This submitted case report is a simple engineering report simulated with the commercial finite element method (FEM) software and does not include any theoretical/technological improvements to the manufacturing process of I-shaped composite beams.
Thank you so much for your comments. There is a study: it is not practicable to reduce the vibration of the workpiece during machining by shortening the holding distance at the clamping points. According to Ref. [15], the weak vibration position of the I-shaped beam is on the up flange of 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 I-shaped beam and the junction between the flange and the web. This demonstrates that weak vibration parts are related to the location and space of the fixture. At the same time, if we will decrease the holding distance to 0.2 m, then two fixtures are not placed, so 0.4 m of the holding distance is chosen for the fixture.
[2] The authors present the following abstract of this paper.
“The analysis also reveals that the reduction of the clamping space does not contribute to that of the vibration.” This abstract is wrong. The clamping space is one of the most important effects on the vibration behavior of a structure, such as span length, end constraint, material properties and cross-section properties, etc.
The reviewer disagrees this abstract. If this abstract is correct, the word of “optimal” in the title is meaningless.
Thank you so much for your comments. We agree with your view. We modified the title.
The reviewer is discouraged from publishing this case report in this journal.
Thank you so much for your comments. We tried our best to modify the manuscript.
PS: The word “reduction” above is incorrect. It should be “increase”, because the optimization purpose is to increase, not redction, the frequencies during manufacturing through the controlling the clamping zone.
Thank you so much for your comments. We agree with some of your points. After optimization, the new fixture will increase the frequence, but reduce the displacement and etc. If the clamping space (0.3 m) is not proper, shortening the distance of the fixture does not work. If the clamping space (0.2 m) is too small, the fixture outfit cannot be placed between it.
