A Numerical Simulation of Machining 6061 Syntactic Foams Reinforced with Hollow Al2O3 Shells
and Ramanujam Karthikeyan 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The reason why the authors dealt with the issue a numerical simulation of machining 6061 syntactic foams reinforced with hollow Al2O3 shells are problems associated with poor machinability of the given type of material. To solve this problem and increase the widespread use of this potential cost and energy saving material system, the authors developed a two-dimensional numerical model using AdvantEdgeTM machining software.
Although the manuscript is well written, some corrections need to be made and the following questions answered:
- In the context of the set goals of solving the given problem, in what way did the authors make a real contribution in improving the machinability of the given material? Need to explain and add to the manuscript.
- Is it possible to consider the results obtained from numerical modeling as valid, as it is known that Aluminum based syntactic foams have a very inhomogeneous structure?
- Although verification was performed, it was performed on a small number of samples. In addition, they were made with the same technology. With a partial change in the production technology of Aluminum closed cell syntactic foams, there can also be significant deviations in the accuracy of the prediction. Did the authors address this fact during their research?
- Tables 1 and 2 are confusing. It needs to be improved.
- Thermal conductivity W/m-K unit incorrectly listed. Correct is W·m-1K-1. The same applies to Specific heat parameter.
- You need to adjust the font size in the figures and tables to match the font size in the text.
- On what basis do the authors claim on page 6 that " The model predictions were within an error margin of 5%"? And also on page 12 " The model was able to predict the cutting forces within an error margin of 5 to 10%". However, the authors conclude, contrary to the above statement, that " The simulation results showed better agreement with the experimental cutting force measurements and were within 15% error margin". These statements need to be reconciled.
- Has a statistical survey of the data obtained been carried out? If so, it is necessary to add to the manuscript.
- There is no discussion at the end of the work in which the authors evaluate the conclusions in the context of existing knowledge. It is very important at the end of the work to emphasize the points of agreement or disagreement between the results in this work and the cited references in the manuscript, whether qualitative or quantitative.
The paper is prepared at a good level and after modifications and additions can be published in the journal Metals.
Author Response
File uploaded.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors presented an article « A numerical simulation of machining 6061 syntactic foams reinforced with hollow Al2O3 shells».
- Abstract
General descriptions in the abstract can be shortened. Please provide the main quantitative and qualitative research core findings.
- In the last paragraph of the introduction section
What is the scientific novelty of the paper? What is the practical value? What makes this approach different from other researchers?
- Material and Methods
Text font should be checked. “The workpiece mesh and cutting tool mesh are created using tri-element mesh. For improving the computational efficiency, the minimum and maximum mesh size of the workpiece were 20μm and 100μm respectively, which were used in AdvantEdgeTM soft-ware.”
The texts in Table 2 and Table 3 are mixed up. should be given more regularly.
It says 20 °C in the text and 30 °C in the Figure 2a. Which one is right?
Text font should be checked (Table 4).
Figure number is wrong. Please check,“A KISTLER™ dynamometer was used along with a multichannel charge amplifier to measure the cutting forces from a force trace graph shown in Fig. 6b.”
Axes should be specified on Figure 3a.
- Results and Discussion
In which direction was the cutting force measured? Please detail.
It is useful to add explanations of parameters to the results obtained. At least five sentences for each Figures.
The results obtained should be explained by supporting the literature. It is useful to add explanations of phenomena to the results obtained. As a reference, 10.1007/s11665-021-06264-4, 10.1177/09544089221080820, 10.1680/jemmr.19.00127
- Conclusions
The conclusions need to be improved. The results are written too long. shorter and core findings of the study should be given. What is the novelty of the article? What is the practical significance? What are the differences from previous works?
Please provide the main quantitative and qualitative research findings.
Authors should carefully study the comments and make improvements to the article step by step. All changes should be highlighted in color.
Author Response
File attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper offers a very good attempt related to machining 6061 syntactic foams reinforced with hollow Al2O3 shells. I believe the only missing portion is how the findings offered in this study can be helpful and beneficial to the industry sector. This should be fully discussed.
Author Response
File attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
