- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 2 on “Stress state dependence of ductile damage and fracture behavior: Experiments and numerical simulations”
Engineering Fracture Mechanics 133 Supplement 1 (2015) 78–79
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Engineering Fracture Mechanics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 2 on ‘‘Stress state dependence of ductile damage and fracture behavior: Experiments and numerical simulations’’ Original submission Recommendation Publish after minor amendments Comments to the author Manuscript Number: FM-D-14-00564 Title: Stress state dependence of ductile damage and fracture behavior: Experiments and numerical simulations The paper presents new experiments and corresponding numerical simulations to study the effect of stress state on damage and fracture of ductile metals. The new experiments consisting in two-dimensionally loaded specimens (three different load ratios) cover a wide range of stress triaxialities and Lode parameters in the tension, shear and compression stress state. The main purpose of the paper is to validate a phenomenological continuum damage model previously developed by the authors. The work constitutes a step-forward to understand the ductile damage mechanism ant it deserves publication in EFM. However, authors could consider the following points: General A new section before conclusions including a discussion of all the results, together to the correspondence with the numerical predictions would be highly appreciated. Specific questions: 1. In all cases, fracture of the specimens occur with no remarkable softening behavior in the load-displacement curves. There is some explanation from the point of view of physical mechanisms of ductile damage? 2. For the load ratio 1:1, an excellent agreement of experimental and numerical curves is observed. However, for other load ratios considered the numerical predictions overestimate the experimental results. Moreover, in one case, the numerical simulation stops with displacements less than experimental ones. Authors may discuss about it. 3. The calibration process of the parameters of the continuum model is explained in section 3, but authors are sure that the parameters obtained are ‘‘optimal’’? First revision Recommendation Publish
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.05.022
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.05.025
Peer Review Report / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 133 Supplement 1 (2015) 78–79
79
Comments to the author As I said previously, the paper constitutes a step-forward to understand the ductile damage mechanisms and it deserves publication in EFM. However, the authors could have responded my specific questions #1 and #2. Anonymous reviewer
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Engineering Fracture Mechanics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 2 on ‘‘Stress state dependence of ductile damage and fracture behavior: Experiments and numerical simulations’’ Original submission Recommendation Publish after minor amendments Comments to the author Manuscript Number: FM-D-14-00564 Title: Stress state dependence of ductile damage and fracture behavior: Experiments and numerical simulations The paper presents new experiments and corresponding numerical simulations to study the effect of stress state on damage and fracture of ductile metals. The new experiments consisting in two-dimensionally loaded specimens (three different load ratios) cover a wide range of stress triaxialities and Lode parameters in the tension, shear and compression stress state. The main purpose of the paper is to validate a phenomenological continuum damage model previously developed by the authors. The work constitutes a step-forward to understand the ductile damage mechanism ant it deserves publication in EFM. However, authors could consider the following points: General A new section before conclusions including a discussion of all the results, together to the correspondence with the numerical predictions would be highly appreciated. Specific questions: 1. In all cases, fracture of the specimens occur with no remarkable softening behavior in the load-displacement curves. There is some explanation from the point of view of physical mechanisms of ductile damage? 2. For the load ratio 1:1, an excellent agreement of experimental and numerical curves is observed. However, for other load ratios considered the numerical predictions overestimate the experimental results. Moreover, in one case, the numerical simulation stops with displacements less than experimental ones. Authors may discuss about it. 3. The calibration process of the parameters of the continuum model is explained in section 3, but authors are sure that the parameters obtained are ‘‘optimal’’? First revision Recommendation Publish
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.05.022
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.05.025
Peer Review Report / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 133 Supplement 1 (2015) 78–79
79
Comments to the author As I said previously, the paper constitutes a step-forward to understand the ductile damage mechanisms and it deserves publication in EFM. However, the authors could have responded my specific questions #1 and #2. Anonymous reviewer