Analysis and Prospect of Precision Plastic Forming Technologies for Production of High-Speed-Train Hollow Axles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

1. Fig. 1. No reference to the literature source.

2. How do thestandards apply to hollow axles?

3. Shouldn'thollow axes according to the document standard only be drilled? 4. Fig. 2 to Fig. 15 - No reference to literature source.

5. line 299 -Pater's team also deals with this topic extensively - include in the text.

6. Fig. 16 toFig. 33 - No reference to literature source.

7. Why did the authors not refer to the axle rolling process where the charge is a thick-walled pipe rolled with and without a mandrel?

8. What degree of plastic working is recommended for shaping wagon axles by the document standards?

9. Which of the presented methods is the best method in terms of energy?

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, the paper is written well. The processes investigated are described comprehensibly, the simulations and calculations are well described and reproducable. The scientific value of the research is limited, but for the technologies investigated and the part which is focussed on, well elaborated.  

For a scientific paper, the international research is not represented as it should. There are many papers in the field of cross rolling, that are not considered. On the other hand, most papers cited are from Prof. Pater (well known in the field of cross rolling) and of the authors themselves. 

The state of the art also misses alternative production technologies for parts like the hollow axle, which are commonly used in production. It seems, that the authors just compared one production type with their "new" production by cross rolling. 

The conclusion is a little bit short, the choice of the most suitable process should be described based on more technical features.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject of the manuscript is topical both in general (finding an economical and optimal technology) and in particular (high-speed trains). The Authors' intention and ambition are clear and fit well with the general requirements for "Review" type articles. I agree with the Authors' thoughts in the "Outlook" section.

In my opinion, a strict logic should be followed when comparing different technologies, especially if it is for review purposes. The "Introduction" chapter separates the "old" and "new" technologies, and the following chapters discuss the "new" methods one by one. This structure is acceptable. However, for a technical comparison, in general and in specific terms, the use of tables and/or flow charts should be preferred to a texturary format. Furthermore, the presentation of the comparisons should be described with the same flow of ideas. I consider both of these statements to be valid even if they do not appear in the original sources. I consider these two elements to be the main shortcomings of the manuscript. No two lines of reasoning are the same when presenting “new” technologies, and the necessity of some elements is questionable. For example: are Figure 18, or Figures 21 and 22 really necessary?

In line with previous thoughts, I consider it necessary to revise the manuscript: I propose less text and (more) tables and/or flow charts for comparisons.

The sources of each figure should be given in the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion. I have revised the manuscript according to your suggestion

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks to the Authors for their constructive approach to the review, for their responses and for the changes made. The changes can be followed in the revised manuscript (proofreading mode) and the justifications can be found in the "Author response" file.

Authors have added several tables to the manuscript comparing each technological process. The presentation of advantages and disadvantages makes it easier to understand the content of the article. Regarding Figure 18, Authors write that they accepted the proposal to delete the figure. Whether or not the figure was actually deleted is not for me to judge. In relation to Figures 21 and 22, the Authors justify the need for the figures; I can accept their reply. The Authors have provided the sources for the figures in the full manuscript, which I consider an important addition.

The consistency of the approach followed in the manuscript has been slightly improved. I regret that the content and length of the text sections have not been changed more by the Authors. I uphold my view that verboseness in technical/scientific texts is not an advantage but a disadvantage.