Optimizing Friction Welding Parameters in AISI 304 Austenitic Stainless Steel and Commercial Copper Dissimilar Joints
, D. Thirumalaikumarasamy 2,*, Venkata Charan Kantumuchu 3, Omar Shabbir Ahmed 4, Mohamed Abbas 5,6, Ahmad Aziz Alahmadi 7, Mamdooh Alwetaishi 8, Ali Nasser Alzaed 9 and Chidambaram Seshadri Ramachandran 10
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
see attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, Greetings. This is to bring your kind information that, all the corrections were carried out as per the suggestions from you. In this regard, kindly accept the manuscript. Thans
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
- In the introduction, the authors should review more specialized sources regarding dissimilar joining methods, especially copper-steel joint. For this purpose, I recommend referring to the following papers; Journal of Central South University, 25, 2018, 1849-1861.
- Authors must use the same abbreviation throughout the text. austenitic stainless steel (SS) or austenitic stainless steel (ASS)?
- Line 100: should be rewritten:” As per the as per the…”
- Various parts of Figure 4 are not uploaded correctly and need to be corrected.
- The quality of all images is low and should be improved in the revision.
- Figure 4(A) should have a scale and the distance of points c,d,e,f,g,ha from the interface should be determined carefully.
- In Figure 5(a), the section of steel and copper should be determined on the figure and the location of analysis 5(b) should be determined in Figure 5(a).
- The method and software used for data optimization and modeling should be provided.
- The authors have stated in the introduction: ”The particular feature of copper-steel couple is the limited solubility of copper and iron and the absence of any intermetallic compounds [5].”
Since copper and gold do not form any intermetallic compounds in the solid state, what is the justification of the authors regarding the observation of FeCu4 in the XRD analysis?
-Conclusion also needs to be rewritten. Include the following: new concepts and innovations demonstrated in this study, a summary of findings, a comparison with findings by other workers, and a concluding remark.
- Most of the references are very old and none of references are from last 7 years, others are very old. include more recent references.
- Literature review is not sufficient and authors must review and cite more papers in the field and especially newly published ones. Doing this, review and citing the following refs could be helpful: Metals, 10, 2020, 634, Materials Research Express 7, 2020, 036529.
- English language of manuscript is acceptable in general. However, it would be much better to improve. Please avoid the unnecessary long sentence. Also, some grammatical mistakes can be observed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, Greetings. This is to bring your kind information that, all the corrections were carried out as per the suggestions from you. In this regard, kindly accept the manuscript. Thanks and regards Dr D.Thirumalaikumarasamy
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The present paper develops an empirical relationship to predict the tensile strengths of friction welded AISI 304 austenitic stainless steels and commercial copper alloys dissimilar joints from the process parameters. The experimental results show that the relationship can be predicted effectively. The joint produced with the optimized parameters by response surface methodology attained the maximum tensile strength of 489 MPa. However, a few revisions are necessary before it could be accepted for publication, and the detailed comments are listed as follows.
1. It is confusing that the maximum tensile strength of 489 MPa was obtained, but the Ultimate Tensile strength of the Copper alloy is just 344MPa?
2. Please standardize the format of keywords and check punctuation in Page 2 line 77.
3. Abbreviations appearing in the paper should be explained first. For example, “FZ” in Page 2 line 70, “UTS” in Page 6 line 176.
4. Please standardize and beautify the annotations in Fig. 1 and Fig. 4(a). It is suggested to add legends and choose colors with a large degree of discrimination in Fig. 2 for better reading.
5. Please add corresponding explanations to Fig. 4(e) and (f) in the paper. Proofread images in Fig. 4(d) and (e). Add labels to distinguish stainless steel from copper in Fig. 5(a).
6. Pay attention to distinguishing subscript in Page 3 line 116. Please unify the decimal places in Page 7 lines 209-211.
7. Please check the space between numbers and units in the article. For example, Page 4 line 126, Page 9 lines 267-269, etc.
8. Table 4. Please unify the case and bold of the units.
9. There are several improper English words and sentences in the manuscript. For example, “to” in Page 4 line 139; “characteristics” in Page 11 line 291; Page 4 line 142; Page 12 line 303.
10. Please delete the modification trace in the text in time. For example, Page 9 lines 241-248, Page 9 lines 267-268, Page 12 line 301 and so on.
11. Please check and unify the format of references, especially the use of spaces. Please check the manuscript carefully.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, Greetings. This is to bring your kind information that, all the corrections were carried out as per the suggestions from you. In this regard, kindly accept the manuscript. Thanks and regards Dr D.Thirumalaikumarasamy
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript is difficult to understand. This standard cannot satisfy the requirement of coatings.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, Greetings. This is to bring your kind information that, all the corrections were carried out as per the suggestions from you. In this regard, kindly accept the manuscript. Thanks and regards Dr D.Thirumalaikumarasamy
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for author for revising.
The introduction, method, and experiment parts have some improvements. However, the modeling part is still flowed. The way of using 30 data points to fit a second-order model with 15 coefficients doesn't make any sense. The author is suggested to simplify the model and try to interpret simple model's physical meaning, instead of exaggerating the fake accuracy.
Best,
Author Response
Respected Reviewer, Greetings. In this investigation four factor five level central composite rotatable design matrix was utilised to predict the tensile strength of the dissimilar welded joints. Totally 30 experiment a were carried out to finding the tensile strength of the dissimilar joints. Statistical tools such as ANOVA have been successfully employed to identify the most relevant factor influencing the tensile strength of the joints. Verification experiments yielded the most excellent results in close proximity to the predicted values. Empirical relation ship was established to predict the tensile strength of the joints. In this regard, kindly accept the model is fit for all the experimental conditions.
Reviewer 2 Report
As authors have performed an adequate revise, the manuscript might be accepted for publication in the journal.
Author Response
Respected Reviewer, my sincere gratitude towards accepting my manuscript. Thanks and regards Dr D.Thirumalaikumarasamy
Reviewer 4 Report
The contributors of this paper is too many, reaching nine people and institute. The maximum institute is usually lower than four. Please revise them.
Author Response
Respected Reviewer, Greetings. Thanks for your suggestions. But all the authors are contributed in this investigation. In this regard I request you to give the acceptance of the paper with all authors. Thanks and regards Dr D.Thirumalaikumarasamy
