Comparison of Different Manufacturing Processes of AISI 4140 Steel with Regard to Surface Modification and Its Influencing Depth

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Section 1.2 shows the brief introduction of different manufacturing methods. Since most of the description can be found from textbook, they can be simplified by just focusing on the surface integrity levels found from the literature.
2. One concern in the methodology of this research is that, most of the manufacturing experiments only use one set of parameters. Considering that the surface property will change as the parameters change in a specific manufacturing method, how representative the results will be for comparing the results from different methods is not clear.
3. Table 3 shows different feed and depth of cut values, but only one value for normal force and one value of tangential force. Is it true that the force values don't change when the feed and depth of cut change?   

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Dear Reviewer 1,

 

Thank you for the careful correction and the valuable hints to improve our paper. In the attached document we marked everything green that we changed due to your input and also changes in the spelling and grammar.

In the following we will deal individually with the points you mentioned:

 

Point 1: Section 1.2 shows the brief introduction of different manufacturing methods. Since most of the description can be found from textbook, they can be simplified by just focusing on the surface integrity levels found from the literature. 


 

Response 1: We shortened the description of the different manufacturing processes and focussed on the differences in the impact on the surface

 

Point 2: One concern in the methodology of this research is that, most of the manufacturing experiments only use one set of parameters. Considering that the surface property will change as the parameters change in a specific manufacturing method, how representative the results will be for comparing the results from different methods is not clear

 

Response 2: since the whole investigation was outlaid as an overview to compare typical manufacturing methods with each other, every manufacturing process was used with standard parameters usually used for the given material. Appropriate explanations are now given in the experimental set up descriptions.

 

Point 3: Table 3 shows different feed and depth of cut values, but only one value for normal force and one value of tangential force. Is it true that the force values don't change when the feed and depth of cut change?  

 

Response 3: In table 3 the maximum forces measured within the process was given. This is now added in the head of the table.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Brigitte Clausen

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript provides an experimental study and comparison regarding 8 different processes. It is generally well written, clear to follow and provides an interesting study. I have not seen many like this and it is likely to be highly cited due to its analysis of the comparison of the performance of the different processes. It does provide an overview rather than going in depth for each process and is therefore not a typical scientific paper.

The abstract provides a good summary of the work completed. Quite a lot is attempted by this paper and work with 7 different processes. This limits the amount that can be said about the results in the abstract.

Background details were clear. I have not seen many studies comparing so many process.

Experimental details were very clear and detailed. I could clearly see why they were chosen and used.

There were two sections of 4. Discussion.

Figure 5 is missing the top of the text off the y scale.

Good clear images of the microstructure. Annotation showing the key aspects would help.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Dear Reviewer 2,

 

Thank you for the careful correction and the valuable hints to improve our paper. In the attached document we marked everything blue that we changed due to your input.

In the following we will deal individually with the points you mentioned:

 

Point 1: The manuscript provides an experimental study and comparison regarding 8 different processes. It is generally well written, clear to follow and provides an interesting study. I have not seen many like this and it is likely to be highly cited due to its analysis of the comparison of the performance of the different processes. It does provide an overview rather than going in depth for each process and is therefore not a typical scientific paper.

The abstract provides a good summary of the work completed. Quite a lot is attempted by this paper and work with 7 different processes. This limits the amount that can be said about the results in the abstract.

Background details were clear. I have not seen many studies comparing so many process.

Experimental details were very clear and detailed. I could clearly see why they were chosen and used.


 

Response 1: Thank you very much for the kind words. It increases the motivation to read such friendly words as introduction.

 

Point 2: There were two sections of 4. Discussion.

 

Response 2: Thank you for the note. We deleted the redundant paragraph.

 

Point 3: Figure 5 is missing the top of the text off the y scale.

 

Response 3: The diagram was replaced.

 

Point 4: Good clear images of the microstructure. Annotation showing the key aspects would help.

 

Response 4: Thank you very much for the compliment. We added some annotations in line 442, 484, 486 (marked blue)

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Brigitte Clausen

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Article

Comparison of different manufacturing processes on 2 AISI 4140 steel with regard to the surface modification and its influencing depth

May 6, 2020

 

 

This is an interesting research comparing the outcomes of several different manufacturing / technological processes.

The research is well presented, preceded by an up-to-date and extensive literature review. The figures and tables are adequate, and the paper is well organized. Except for a few minor blemishes, the quality of technical English usage is adequate.

I recommend publication, but first the authors should please consider the following minor suggestions:

 

General

In the beginning of the paper, a clear statement concerning choice of parameters for the different processes should be made. Of course, for each one of the processes, different results concerning metallography, residual stress, etc. will be achieved for different parameters. Since a key feature of the paper is the comparison of outcomes of several processes, criteria for selection of parameters for each process should be clearly stated.

 

Concerning detail

Line 26 … load characteristics … please clarify: what loads? is this external loads? in-service loads applied to the manufactured component? or …?

Line 29 … AISI 4140; German steel grade 42CrMo4 … please state standard – is it EN 10083?   DIN EN 10083 ?

Line 57 … can exemplarily … I suggest you write: … can for example …

Line 83 … The analyzation results … this sounds weird! I suggest: The results of the analysis …

Line 180 …. 1.2.6 Inductive heat treatment … - I suggest you use the same designation as in Figure 1.

Line 259 … was defined. The machining operations with need for cylindrical samples used a cylinder… . please re-write; as it is, it is hard to read!

Line 319 name of the company is EFD Induction, not EFD.

Line 357 … measurements Martens hardness is due to the very small forces suitable … I suggest to rephrase as : …. measurements Martens hardness involve very small forces suitable …

Lines 613 – 614  In: …. electron microscopy. As shown in Figure 7 b) and c). Both ….. Please rephrase the sentence:  As shown in Figure 7 b) and c).

Line 725 …. influences the occurring mechanism: For turning almost … should be: …. influences the occurring mechanism.  For turning almost ….

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Dear Reviewer 3,

 

Thank you for the careful correction and the valuable hints to improve our paper. In the attached document we marked everything yellow that we changed due to your input and additional changes in the spelling and grammar were marked green.

In the following we will deal individually with the points you mentioned:

 

Point 1: This is an interesting research comparing the outcomes of several different manufacturing / technological processes.

The research is well presented, preceded by an up-to-date and extensive literature review. The figures and tables are adequate, and the paper is well organized. Except for a few minor blemishes, the quality of technical English usage is adequate. 


 

Response 1: Thank you very much for the kind words. It increases the motivation to read such friendly words as introduction.

 

Point 2: In the beginning of the paper, a clear statement concerning choice of parameters for the different processes should be made. Of course, for each one of the processes, different results concerning metallography, residual stress, etc. will be achieved for different parameters. Since a key feature of the paper is the comparison of outcomes of several processes, criteria for selection of parameters for each process should be clearly stated.

 

Response 2: In the attached document you’ll find a new introducing paragraph in line 245. In the following chapters each description of the experimental set up was supplemented by the criteria for the parameter choice.

 

Point 3: Line 26 … load characteristics … please clarify: what loads? is this external loads? in-service loads applied to the manufactured component? or …?

 

Response 3: Change marked yellow in document:… load characteristics applied to manufactured components by several different machining operations.

 

Point 4: Line 29 … AISI 4140; German steel grade 42CrMo4 … please state standard – is it EN 10083?   DIN EN 10083 ?

 

Response 4: changed in the document, marked yellow: (AISI 4140; German steel grade 42CrMo4 acc. to DIN EN 10083-3)

 

Line 57 … can exemplarily … I suggest you write: … can for example …done

Line 83 … The analyzation results … this sounds weird! I suggest: The results of the analysis …done

Line 180 …. 1.2.6 Inductive heat treatment … - I suggest you use the same designation as in Figure 1. done

Point 5: Line 259 … was defined. The machining operations with need for cylindrical samples used a cylinder… . please re-write; as it is, it is hard to read!

 

Response 5: changed in the document. Changes marked yellow: First of all, a simple geometry, suitable for several different machining operations provided within the CRC, was defined. The machining operations applied on rotating components used a cylinder with a diameter of 58 mm (57.8 mm after electrochemical removal of the surface layer). Sub-projects that could apply their machining operations only on flat surfaces, used cuboids.

 

Line 319 name of the company is EFD Induction, not EFD. done

Line 357 … measurements Martens hardness is due to the very small forces suitable … I suggest to rephrase as : …. measurements Martens hardness involve very small forces suitable …done

Lines 613 – 614  In: …. electron microscopy. As shown in Figure 7 b) and c). Both ….. Please rephrase the sentence:  As shown in Figure 7 b) and c).

Now in line 593: The hardness increase observed after hard turning and grind-strengthening (Figure 5 c)) can be interpreted with the results of electron microscopy as shown in Figure 7 b) and c).

Line 725 …. influences the occurring mechanism: For turning almost … should be: …. influences the occurring mechanism.  For turning almost ….done

 

Thanks again for the very detailed review!

Kind regards,

 

Brigitte Clausen

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In Table 3, there are three feed speeds and three depths of cut. However, there is only one value of tangential force and one value of normal force. Which feed speed and depth of cut corresponds to the force value presented? Of different feed speeds and depths of cut give the same forces? 

This is confusing, and should be corrected or clarified.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you again for the careful correction and the valuable hints to improve our paper.

Point 1: In Table 3, there are three feed speeds and three depths of cut. However, there is only one value of tangential force and one value of normal force. Which feed speed and depth of cut corresponds to the force value presented? Of different feed speeds and depths of cut give the same forces? This is confusing, and should be corrected or clarified.

Response 1: The forces given in table 3 were actually only an additional information by the author, who wrote the paragraph, to help the potential reader to classify the process. Since the other authors did not give the forces measured in their manufacturing processes and the forces are not needed for the further discussion, there are three possible ways to change the paragraph surrounding table 3:

Option1: We add information to text which clarifies the indication of the measured forces in table 3. The maximum forces occurred within the first set of parameters of feed speed v_fr=0.3mm/min and depth of cut a_e=0.1mm. During the other parameters the forces were lower and thus are not shown for the complete process maximum forces.

Option 2: The forces are removed from table 3 since they are not discussed in the results section and not indicated for the other investigated processes. The process forces are in this case circumstantial for the shown analysis.

Option 3: The maximum force values separated for the other parameters within the process are added to table 3.

 

We chose option 1 for the attached version of our manuscript. The changes are marked yellow. I hope we do not excess your patience if we ask you to accept the attached version or chose one of the other options.

Kind regards,

Brigitte Clausen

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewer does not have further questions.