Surface Nanocrystallization and Numerical Modeling of 316L Stainless Steel during Ultrasonic Shot Peening Process

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper by Pengyi Li et al. presents a numerical simulation of the ultrasonic shot peening process using a finite element simulation model. The developed model is confirmed by experimental results. The relevance of the work lies in the need to determine the relationship between the process modes and the microstructure of stainless steel. The article is written in scientific language, an adequate literary review is given. Experimental methods, diagnostic methods and computational models are described in detail in the article. The work is of interest to materials science and will be of interest to Metals readers after eliminating minor comments.

1) In Figure 3, the cross-section of the sample is divided into different areas. Describe in detail by what criteria was this division carried out?

2) On page 6 line 182-183 it says that "…there are 9 impacts during this period for a single shot…". Please explain how the number of impacts was determined?

3) On page 5 line 180 it says "…Four points as illustrated in the inset of figure 4 (a)…" - but there are no such designations on figure 4? 

4) The calculation results are compared with the experiment for one stroke. How correct is this comparison?

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presents research on the modification of the surface microstructure of 316L steel and numerical simulations of changes in the structure and properties of steel during the ultrasonic shot peening (USP) process. The presented research results are of a utilitarian nature in the processing of 316L steel to improve its technological and functional strength properties.

 

Notes to the article:

Chapter 2: Research Methods has been sufficiently described. However, the ultrasonic shot peening (USP) process is insufficiently described. Specify the device and machining parameters.

Fig. 1: The figure should have a general caption what it shows, followed by a description to (a), (b) and (c).

Fig. 1: Chapter 2 characterizes the test material, but Fig. 1 presents the test results. Therefore, I believe that this should be included in Chapter 3, Results. In addition, the results of the surface profile tests are illegible.

Chapter 3.1: When giving average grain size values, give the standard deviation.

Fig. 3: The figure should have a general caption what it shows, followed by a description to (a) and (b). Also, the diffraction pattern (SADP) in the selected area is unreadable.

Fig. 4: The figure should have a general caption what it shows, followed by a description to (a) - (f). In addition, descriptions for figures and diagrams are unreadable.

Chapter 4.1: I find the subchapter title inappropriate. The chapter presents structural changes that have occurred in the material, but it is not a grain refinement mechanism.

Line 214-215: Please provide the reference to the literature that the authors are citing.

Fig. 5: The descriptions in the drawings of the structure are illegible.

Fig. 6: The descriptions in the drawings are illegible.

Fig. 7: Graph descriptions are illegible.

Chapter 4.3: The structure of the article is confusing. Chapter 3, Results, presents the results of the studies, and Chapter 4, Discussion, should discuss the previously published study results. Meanwhile, more research results appear in Chapter 4. I believe that the content structure in the article should be organized.

Fig. 9, 10, 11: Figures are completely illegible.

Fig. 13, 14: The descriptions in the drawings are illegible

References: There are too many self-citations. Author Yin F. is a co-author of the following references: [11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,20,21,22]. This is over 45% of self-citations. Analysing the content of the article, I think that such a large number of self-citations is not justified.

 

In the overall assessment, the authors only discuss the analysis and interpretation of the obtained research results. There is no reference of the obtained research results to the existing state of knowledge, no comparison of the obtained results with similar solutions and no demonstration of what new the obtained research results bring to the known knowledge in this subject. I believe that such a discussion would significantly increase the scientific value of the article.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made additions to the article in line with my comments.

 

However, I believe that the quality of the drawings and descriptions in the drawings, if it has changed, is only slightly. I leave the decision to the journal's editors whether the descriptions in the drawings should be more legible.

 

In my previous comment, I pointed out that there are over 45% of self-citations in the article, not that this is an acceptable level. In the current version, there are almost 30% of self-citations. I still think it's too much. In my opinion, there should be no more than 20% of self-citations in the article and they should be strongly justified. On this matter, I also leave the decision to the Editors.