Effect of Hybrid Metal Matrix Composite Punch on the Deep Drawing Process
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have several concerns regarding this manuscript. These issues have to be first addressed carefully before further evaluation.
1- The authors claim that they used different volume fraction of reinforcement for the preparation of MMCs, but in the manuscript, there is no discussion on what compound give the best performance as a punch instead of the effect of punch nose radius. So, please change the title, abstract, and introduction, or report what is the advantage of having composite materials over the DIN 1006-02 steel punch nose materials.
2- The importance of hybrid composite materials is not discussed at all. The authors are recommended to read and use the following articles:
- Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 2017, 699, 308-322
- Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 2017, 694, 408-418
- Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 2017, 696, 856-868
- Journal of Composite Materials, 2018, 52 (27), 3745-3758
3- ".....are used to produce hybrid iron based metal matrix composites using powder metal- 173 lurgy technique". The powder metallurgy technique has to be introduced and discussed in the experimental procedure section.
4- The "tri-biological properties" is a wrong term and is Tribological properties.
The English of the manuscript has to be revised. For example "the tri-biological properties" is a wrong term and is Tribological properties.
Author Response
We have uploaded the reviewing report for the Reviewer#1
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is written confusingly, in the abstract and in the introductory passage it is written that research will be carried out on 5 samples with different content of Al2O3 and ZrO2 fractions, and in the article only 2 results of commonly used steel and composite are compared, then I miss the goal of the work.
Authors must clearly reformulate the goals of the article, what is actually the output of the measurement.
Furthermore, the measurement of roughness according to which standard is not specified, exactly in which place and under what conditions and how many times was the measurement was repeated, if so why are there no measurement statistics anywhere?
There is no measurement error or deviation in all thickness measurement graphs, did the authors measure only one sample??
In the conclusion part, they write again about the material that was strengthened by 0 to 4% volume fraction, but there is no comparison of 5 different materials in any graph, the authors focus in detail on the radius and other other things.
I recommend accepting the article after major revisions when the authors specify the measurement methodology and clearly define the goal of the work, as well as the results and conclusion.
Author Response
We have uploaded the reviewing report for Reviewer#2
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled “jcs-2516071” dealing with composite has been reviewed. The paper has been nicely written but needs some improvement. Please follow my comments.
1. How did you find the values in Table 1? Is it based on standards?
2. Authors are encouraged to state what industry application of this work.
3. What is the main issue that will be addressed by this research? This needs to be highlighted.
4. Add a scale bar to Figure 6.
5. What is the future direction of this work?
6. Please proofread the paper.
7. Deep drawing is faster than Additive Manufacturing and some other manufacturing processes so add this note and refer to the following papers. “Benchmark models for conduction and keyhole modes in laser-based powder bed fusion of Inconel 718”. “Additive manufacturing of Inconel-625: from powder production to bulk samples printing”.
Proofread is needed.
Author Response
We have uploaded the reviewing report for Reviewer#3
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed my concerns carefully and it can be accepted as is.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors corrected the article according to the reviewer's requirements, but the article needs a few minor adjustments. The authors state the sign for degrees (°) incorrectly in at least 3 cases. Figure 11 has illegible dimensions (pink color) and in the second image, the dimensions do not correspond to the rules of technical drawing when the dimensions are indicated , is crossed out by the second dimension. I recommend accepting the article after making minor adjustments.