Algorithm Scheme to Simulate the Distortions during Gas Quenching in a Single-Piece Flow Technology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have introduced the topic well. They have clearly stated the current state of art, limitations with the current approaches and then explained how their approach will address the limitations.
Experimental setup, computational tools used, relevant equations, etc. has been explained for readers to attempt reproducing these results.
Simulation results are in accordance with experimental findings.
Overall, this work will be beneficial for the readers.
Author Response
We would like to thank you for taking the time to read our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and constructive suggestions about the quality of the study.
The all manuscript has been rewritten and has been checked by native English speaker.
Kind Regards
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Numerical simulation to predict the distortion during gas quenching is important for better control of specimen quality. This work provides a study on this topic. The authors presented an algorithm scheme for numerical simulation of the heat treatment process, and also performed experimental work to examine the simulation results. Although some interesting results were provided, the manuscript should be significantly improved in order to be published in the highly reputed journal of Coatings. The points listed below should be considered.
1. The manuscript is difficult to be read and understood. Firstly, the English should be improved significantly. For example, in page 2, Line 50-52, 65, 75,79, and so on. Secondly, there are some items required to be explained, e.g., UCM, the 1-factor ANOVA hypothesis, the JMatPro® program, CFX solver, source term, SST k-ω model, ANOVA, HPQ 4D....
2. Many parameters in equations have not been explained. For example, what is the source term in Equation (5)? what is β*, ω and k in Equation (6)? What are a1K in Equation (8) and μt in Equation (9)?
3. A parenthesis in Equation (11) is missing.
4. Why are the coefficients in line 176 fixed and equal to those values?
5. The descriptions about why those equations were proposed and how to use them should be given.
6. The input data of material properties should be provided.
7. The method for experimentally measuring the carbon concentration should be given in Section 2.1.
8. It seems that the difference between the numerical and experimental results for the inner circle are great. Can you please explain how you calculate a difference of 2%?
9. It should be linear expansion in Figure 3, rather than "linear expression".
10. What is the major advancement of this work for the field?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments:
1. The title is not concise enough; so it should be modified.
2. The abstract should be the summary of the whole work. It should be written such as a way that it will tell the potential readers: (a) What is the problem/question?, (b) How the problem has been solved?, (c) What are the findings ?, and (d) finally, the findings (validation is necessary ) will be the answer/solution of the problem/question as stated in (a).
The above-stated ''order'' should be the right order of a reader-friendly ''abstract'' of a scientific paper. Unfortunately, the current version of the ''abstract'' does not meet the criterion as stated above. Moreover, the abbreviated words are not allowed to use in the abstract. Therefore, a major revision is necessary.
3. The introduction is often called the heart of a scientific paper. It is because the currently existing literature is required to be surveyed extensively to figure out the ''research gap''. Then, based on this ''research gap'', the rest of the part of the paper is constructed so that the potential readers can easily go thought the paper without facing any difficulties. However, the current version of the ''introduction'' is not written by maintaining the ''norms'' as stated above. Therefore, a major revision is recommended for the introduction part.
4. The statements (which are written in 65 and 66 pages) [ Currently.....formation ] as cited here in the third bracket MUST be explained in detail. It makes a severe confusion for this article.
5. The experimental part also should be written in a reader-friendly manner. Unfortunately, the current version is different as expected. So, the modification is necessary.
6. Figure 2 must be enlarged. But, dragging is not allowed. All statements inside the box MUST be enlarged one by one.
7. The numerical simulation includes several modules such as (i) diffusion module, (ii) Fluid module, (iii) thermal module, and (iv) phase change module.
What kind of software is used to ''unify'' all of these modules in a one platform to get the solution? A clear statement is necessary regarding this matter.
8. For phase change, what kind of ''model'' is employed in this simulation?
9. All equations which are involved in this manuscript MUST be written using the ''EQUATION editor'' and special care MUST also be taken between the size of the text and the text involved in the equations. So, the proper matching is expected.
10. Check the statement written in line number 173.
11. Regarding the ''fixed coefficients (lines: 175-177)'', how did you decide the values of these coefficients?
Explanation and reference are necessary?
12. What is plotted in figures 11 and 12?
13. The ''spacing problem'' exits in this manuscript. For instance, see the line: 237.
14. Finally, the conclusion part is required to be modified as the conclusion also tells the whole story of the manuscript in a very precise manner as abstract ( i.e., problem definition, the solution process, findings, and future work if any). But, the completely same sentence/word should not be used.
15. The reference list MUST be checked whether it
meets the criterion of this Journal (Coatings).
As summarized above, I would like to suggest to authors that this manuscript can not be considered for publication in the Journal of ''Coatings'' without major revision. So, a major revision is recommended.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have revised a lot on this manuscript. I have no additional comments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. These comments were all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.
Kind Regards
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments:
The authors have tried to modify their manuscript as per recommendation, but their modifications have not been done in the right fashion. So, this modification cannot be categorized as a major revision; this is one aspect. On the other hand, another aspect is that the authors have been suggested to highlight their modified parts only with the colors. But in the highlighted part with colors, it is found a statement that is exactly taken from the original version, which means that the author's argument is not right. In other words, the authors have not maintained the professional way of the modification in the highlighted version and hence their last version. Under these circumstances, this manuscript cannot be considered as a suitable one for publication in the Journal of coatings.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We would like to thank you for taking the time to read our manuscript. Taking your comments into consideration, we would also like to address the following issued you pointed out.
In the previous author's reply to the review report (reviewer 3) we have included a file (pdf) with a description of the changes introduced in our manuscript. (see text below). We changed the abstract, introduction and other things in accordance with the reviewer's suggestion.
We apologize for the illegible manuscript (highlighted part with colors) - manuscript has been checked by a native English speaker (https://tlumaczymy.org/?lang=en). - and we have copied his text into our manuskrypt - it is our fault.
We have prepared a corrected version of the manuscript with highlight only modified parts (see attached file name: author-coverletter-7854016.v1.docx in Author's Notes File Report Notes )
We hope that you will consider the provided explanation in the further review process.
Kind Regards
Authors
______________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Reviewer#3
We greatly appreciate the encouraging and helpful comments of the distinguished Reviewer and revised our manuscript according to the valuable suggestions. The manuscript was revised to incorporate all comments, complementary requested results, and corrections suggested by the Reviewer.
- The title is not concise enough; so it should be modified.
The tile was modified:
Algorithm Scheme to Simulate the Distortions during Gas Quenching in a Single-Piece Flow Technology.
- The abstract should be the summary of the whole work. It should be written such as a way that it will tell the potential readers: (a) What is the problem/question?, (b) How the problem has been solved?, (c) What are the findings ?, and (d) finally, the findings (validation is necessary ) will be the answer/solution of the problem/question as stated in (a).
The above-stated ''order'' should be the right order of a reader-friendly ''abstract'' of a scientific paper. Unfortunately, the current version of the ''abstract'' does not meet the criterion as stated above. Moreover, the abbreviated words are not allowed to use in the abstract. Therefore, a major revision is necessary.
The abstract has been rewritten.
The abstract now have a structure:
1) Context;
2) Gap;
3) Purpose;
4) Methodology;
5) Result;
As the Reviewer suggest, we should answer the questions:
- a) What is the problem, question? (2-Gap)
- b) How the problem has been solved? (3 – purpose )
- c) What are the findings? (5-Results)
- d) Findings and validation – must answer the item (a). (5-Results)
1) Context: Low pressure carburizing followed by high pressure quenching in the single piece flow technology have shown good results avoiding distortions. Numerical simulation to predict the distortion during gas quenching can be profitable in this process for better control of the specimen quality.
2) Gap: There is no commercial software able simulate the distortions formations during gas quenching that considers the complex fluid flow field and the heat transfer coefficient as function of the space and time.
3) Purpose: Therefore, this paper presents an algorithm scheme that considers the complex fluid flow and the heat transfer coefficient as function of the space and time.
4) Methodology: Based on physical phenomena involved, the numerical scheme was developed divided in five modules: Diffusion Module, Fluid Module, Thermal Module Phase Transformation Module and Mechanical Module. The simulation was compared to the experimental results.
5) Results: Carbon concentration distribution; temperature distribution and distortions simulations were obtained. The average difference between the numerical and experimental results for distortions were 1.7% for outer circle and 12% for inner circle of the steel’s element surface. Numerical simulation shows also the differences between deformations in the inner and outer diameter as it appears in experimental data.
6) Conclusion: Therefore, a numerical model was obtained capable of simulating distortions in the steel elements during high pressure gas quenching after low pressure carburizing in a single piece flow technology, whereupon the complex fluid flow and the variation of the heat transfer coefficient were considered
- The introduction is often called the heart of a scientific paper. It is because the currently existing literature is required to be surveyed extensively to figure out the ''research gap''. Then, based on this ''research gap'', the rest of the part of the paper is constructed so that the potential readers can easily go thought the paper without facing any difficulties. However, the current version of the ''introduction'' is not written by maintaining the ''norms'' as stated above. Therefore, a major revision is recommended for the introduction part.
The introduction has been rewritten.
The new structure for introduction:
1) Context: Importance of the area.
2) State of art: literature review
3) Research GAP: Limitations, what need to be improved.
4) Purpose of the article
- The statements (which are written in 65 and 66 pages) [ Currently.....formation ] as cited here in the third bracket MUST be explained in detail. It makes a severe confusion for this article.
The statements and experimental part are changed or corrected in new version.
- The experimental part also should be written in a reader-friendly manner. Unfortunately, the current version is different as expected. So, the modification is necessary.
The statements and experimental part are changed or corrected in new version.
- Figure 2 must be enlarged. But, dragging is not allowed. All statements inside the box MUST be enlarged one by one.
New figure is was added.
- The numerical simulation includes several modules such as (i) diffusion module, (ii) Fluid module, (iii) thermal module, and (iv) phase change module. What kind of software is used to ''unify'' all of these modules in a one platform to get the solution? A clear statement is necessary regarding this matter.
The explanation is included in section “2.3 Numerical simulation”;
The simulation was created by implementing and modifying the solvers available in the ANSYS package with the use of data generated in JMatPro® program.
- For phase change, what kind of ''model'' is employed in this simulation?
Phase change was calculated by implementing the thermal and mechanical properties matrices from JMatPro® program. Those properties are dependent from speed of cooling, temperature and carbon concentration. The program in every iteration is mapping the matrices and setting proper value of each property in finite elements.
- All equations which are involved in this manuscript MUST be written using the ''EQUATION editor'' and special care MUST also be taken between the size of the text and the text involved in the equations. So, the proper matching is expected.
The all equations were corrected.
- Check the statement written in line number 173.
The statement was checked, and missing parenthesis was placed in.
- Regarding the ''fixed coefficients (lines: 175-177)'', how did you decide the values of these coefficients? Explanation and reference are necessary?
Those coefficients are default settings for solving SST model of turbulence. The user can manipulate them for searching the solution for his simulation, in our case the default settings where set and had given good results.
- What is plotted in figures 11 and 12?
The presented charts (Figures 11 and 12) show the differences between numerical and experimental deformations in the inner and outer diameters. For clearer understanding the description under figures was modified.
- The ''spacing problem'' exits in this manuscript. For instance, see the line: 237.
The spacing problem has been checked and corrected.
- Finally, the conclusion part is required to be modified as the conclusion also tells the whole story of the manuscript in a very precise manner as abstract ( i.e., problem definition, the solution process, findings, and future work if any). But, the completely same sentence/word should not be used.
The conclusions were modified.
- The reference list MUST be checked whether it meets the criterion of this Journal (Coatings).
The reference list has been checked.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We have attempted to clarify all the concerns in the revised manuscript, which helped us present our results more clearly in the revised manuscript. We hope the revisions and responses are sufficient and the resubmitted manuscript is suitable for publication.
Kind Regards
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
