Effect of Roller Burnishing and Slide Roller Burnishing on Fatigue Strength of AISI 304 Steel: Comparative Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper aims to study novel process that can provide a new process of treating parts in the manufacturing industry through finishing operations.

From my point of view, the structure, the topic covered, the tests carried out and the way of presenting them is correct. Anyway, to recommend it for publication, it would be necessary to answer the following questions:

1. Why did the authors have chosen such different operating conditions for processes type “A” and “B”? This means that it is then impossible to know if the obtained choose are due to the difference in the feed, for example, or if it is due to the processes that are being compared (RB or SRB).

2. The materials used in the previous study (AISI 316) and in this study (AISI 304) are very different in terms of mechanical properties. Why did the authors use the optimal process parameters found for 316 in this study? Based on our experience with the burnishing process, each material has associated different optimal process parameters and they are usually very different.

3. Is the process taken for the first group of specimens turning or turning plus polishing? Sometimes one or the other is mentioned throughout the entire paper. Please clarify this.

4. In table 5, the Rku values ​​for the SRB processes called my attention. Could the authors give a clearer explanation of the reasons they believe lead to obtaining these values?

5. In figure 12, I think that perhaps it is better to draw the curves, approximated so that the morphology of each of the S-N curves can be better seen. How many specimens were used for each force condition?

6. In the results discussion section, I miss references to papers that deal with the same topic, to corroborate or contrast the results obtained. There are many papers published in recent years that refer to similar studies.

Above all, I consider this last point to be very important to be able to propose this paper to be published.

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Roller burnishing is currently one of the research hotspots for shaft parts with fatigue failure risks. The authors compared the effects of slide roller burnishing and roller burnishing on the surface integrity and rotational bending fatigue performance of 304 stainless steel under different feed rates and burnishing force conditions, and obtained many data and correct conclusions with engineering practical significance. The structure of the entire paper is appropriate, the writing is fluent, and the research results have certain engineering application value. However, there are still some issues to be clear. We believe that the authors need to make some modifications before acceptance as follows:

(1) What are the specific differences between slide roller burnishing and roller burnishing? We hope the authors to explain them through a schematic diagram to enhance readability.

(2) From Fig. 12, compared to turning, some of the fatigue cycles of the specimens subjected to the burnishing process has been "slightly" improved partly, but not “significantly”. Under high stress, there is little difference between processes, especially the cycles of -A process is not as good as that after turning under certain stresses, and morerover, the fatigue life itself has a relatively large dispersion. We wonder how many fatigue specimens are made at each stress in each state. Are these points in Fig. 12 statistical results or actual test points? However, consistent with the authors, we believe that the effect of fatigue gain gradually increases with decreasing stress, and this conclusion is correct.

(3) The authors specifically compared and analyzed the fatigue fractures of five surface states at 580MPa. By comparing the data in Fig. 12, we observed that the lifespan order of the four strengthening processes is SRB-B>RB-B>SRB-A>RB-A>turning. This life sequence is maintained under stresses of around 580MPa, and the authors attribute this fatigue life gain to the thickness of the surface modification layer. Although the image of the origin of fatigue cracks may not be clear, we agree with this result. We hope the authors can provide the relationship between the process parameters and the fatigue performance gain, so that engineers can easily come up with clearer conclusions when reading.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My notes:

In the article, I miss the mention of the method of determining the residual stress.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the authors have answered all my questions adequately.

Author Response

Thanks!