Comparative Analysis of Finite Element Formulations for Simulating Hot Forming of Ti-6Al-4V Aerospace Components

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my franck opinion, the paper is interesting and deserves to be published after minor revisions:

 

1) Review of the English language by a native speaker.

2) Insert error bars in the graphs.

3) Figure 1: what is the exact size of the piece?

4) "This part undergoes a hot forming process at a temperature of 725 ◦C to achieve the desired shape and mechanical properties". Why this temperature? Is there any reference? From the point of view of materials science, temperature changes mechanical and corrosion resistance - it is important to cite a reference.

5) Figure 2: wouldn’t it be interesting to put together a scale?

6) Table 1: how was the chemical composition of the sample measured?

7) Table 2: what are the errors associated with the measurements?

8) Figure 4: increase the size of the axes image.

9) Figure 6: increase the image size.

10) Image 7: increase the size of the table.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Review of the English language by a native speaker.

Author Response

Please find attached a PDF document detailing the answers to your questions. The manuscript has been modified to take into account the comments. Additions are indicated in red, major changes in blue in the revised PDF version. Grammatical corrections are not detailed but have been taken into account.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is well-written. The figures quality is high and clear. However, there are a few issues that need to be addressed. My review comments are listed below:

1. This make is too long. If possible, please remove the redundant sections to make this paper concise. For example, the introduction section is too long.

2. what are the dimensions of the model you simulated?

3. section 3.1 has nothing to do with the results. I suggest the authors remove this section.

4. in figure 6, the peak appeared at 76%. Can you please elaborate it more?

5. the author needs to elaborate the results (figure 7, 8, 10) but not just showing the results without any explanations.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This paper is well-written. The figures quality is high and clear. However, there are a few issues that need to be addressed. My review comments are listed below:

1. This make is too long. If possible, please remove the redundant sections to make this paper concise. For example, the introduction section is too long.

2. what are the dimensions of the model you simulated?

3. section 3.1 has nothing to do with the results. I suggest the authors remove this section.

4. in figure 6, the peak appeared at 76%. Can you please elaborate it more?

5. the author needs to elaborate the results (figure 7, 8, 10) but not just showing the results without any explanations.

 

 

Author Response

Please find attached a PDF document detailing the answers to your questions. The manuscript has been modified to take into account the comments. Additions are indicated in red, major changes in blue in the revised PDF version. Grammatical corrections are not detailed but have been taken into account.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author corrected all comments and this paper is ready to be published.

 

Thank you!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author corrected all comments and this paper is ready to be published.

 

Thank you!