Next Article in Journal
Effects of Zn Addition on the Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of As-Extruded Mg-2Al-0.5Ca Alloy
Previous Article in Journal
Influence of Sintering Temperature on the Structural, Morphological, and Electrochemical Properties of NiO-YSZ Anode Synthesized by the Autocombustion Route
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Metals
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/met12020220
Review Report
metals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

AZ31 Sheet Forming by Clustering Ball Spinning-Analysis of Damage Evolution Using a Modified GTN Model

Metals 2022, 12(2), 220; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/met12020220
by Zhiqing Hu 1,2,*, Lijia Da 1, Jia Xi 1 and Xinchen Li 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Metals 2022, 12(2), 220; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/met12020220
Submission received: 17 December 2021 / Revised: 14 January 2022 / Accepted: 17 January 2022 / Published: 25 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic Processing, Analysis, Modelling and Mechanics of Materials and Structures)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic and the results provided in the submitted manuscript are interesting for the readership of Metals. Nevertheless, in the referee’s opinion, the text should be revised to achieve a high-quality research paper.

  • The authors should consider that not all the readers when approaching the manuscript are confident with GTN models or with the clustering ball spinning process. Therefore, in the referee’s opinion, the abstract should be revised, providing the scopes of the research and an overview of the main results achieved. Detailed (and not contextualized) results, such as kw=3 or displacement of 27mm, are misleading and not appealing for the readers. Please, completely revise the abstract.
  • The last paragraph of the introduction must clearly define which is the novelty of this research and which activities have been performed.
  • In line 66, “composition” is singular.
  • A research article is not supposed to provide all the analytical steps followed to formulate a method. These pieces of information are reported in manuals and books. Simplify and reduce subsection 3.1 Contact Stress and Figure 3.
  • The text at lines 126-128 seems to be an internal communication.
  • Section heading 2.2 Step 2 is included in the caption of Figure 11.
  • Please, improve the presentation of the numerical results. Include a comparison between experimental and numerical results to clearly assess the predictivity of the model.
  • Correct the “Author Contributions” and “Funding” sections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work represents a fair journal paper, with a solid theoretical background, validated by experimental work.

I only have some minor recommendations:

- figure 1 is hard to follow and understand, a better solution would be to place a schematic diagram of the device near the image and indicate the components on both, photo and diagram

- the conclusion section is rather short. It would be better to summarize the conclusion by highlighting also what novelties brings this approach compared with what others did

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop