Determination of the Relationship between Proportional and Non-Proportional Fatigue Damage in Magnesium Alloy AZ31 BF
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
the paper is well written and can be considered for publication in crystals. However some topics need to be addressed before publication.
1) Can magnesium be applied for dental application, like dental implants or prostheses ? Please discuss and cite PubMed ID26922985 and PubMed ID28696070
2) Can be done a comparison between magnesium and other materials used for oral prostheses? Please discuss and cite PubMed ID34425665
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestions for improvement.
1) Can magnesium be applied for dental application, like dental implants or prostheses? Please discuss and cite PubMed ID26922985 and PubMed ID28696070
2) Can be done a comparison between magnesium and other materials used for oral prostheses? Please discuss and cite PubMed ID34425665
R: The topics indicated were addressed in the introduction to the article.
Reviewer 2 Report
See comments to author
Firsltly, he sample geoemtry should be presented in detail because the laoding conditions depend largely to the sample geometry.
secondly, the fatigue test protocole should be added to lead a better understanding about the two loading modes; espacially the shear stress evaluation should be precised for the tensile fatigue loading condition;
thirdly, it is important to add a separated discussion part before the conclusion, to leave a global synthesis about the different results and to explain the resultsd evolution,
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestions for improvement.
Firsltly, he sample geoemtry should be presented in detail because the laoding conditions depend largely to the sample geometry.
R: An illustration with the example geometry was added to the article
secondly, the fatigue test protocole should be added to lead a better understanding about the two loading modes; espacially the shear stress evaluation should be precised for the tensile fatigue loading condition;
R: The fatigue test protocol used is described in ASTM E466. Additional information has been added to the manuscript to clarify this information.
thirdly, it is important to add a separated discussion part before the conclusion, to leave a global synthesis about the different results and to explain the resultsd evolution,
R: A separate discussion section was added to the manuscript
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is novel, original, clearly presented, and well organized. The paper adequately conveys the uniqueness of its approach and related results. The results are interpreted correctly, and the research question is answered. The paper does not contain material that could be omitted.
Each of the graphs is presented in a very legible and clear way, as well as their interpretation is described in detail. The work presented for review is very interesting, deals with an interesting topic and fits well with the scope of the journal. Minor comments:
Abstract: The authors focused on describing the results of the work, however, the main methods or treatments applied were not properly described.
The “Literature review” section is too general. In addition, previous studies on magnesium alloy AZ31 BF which is a test material in this article should be included in this section.
Equation 3: "K?" ?
The writing style of parameters used in Equations in main test should be uniform (italics).
PP and OP in Equations (4) and (5) should be explained below Eq. (1), rather than in line 266.
line 330: The acronym “NF” has not been defined.
Mpa should be written as MPa.
The results are merely discussed and is limited to comparing the experimental observation. The authors are encouraged to include a discussion section and critically discuss the observations from this investigation with existing literature.
Further, the analysis of the fracture surfaces can be discussed which will be helpful to understand the initiation and development of fracture.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestions for improvement.
Abstract: The authors focused on describing the results of the work, however, the main methods or treatments applied were not properly described.
R: To clarify this point, additional information has been added to the Abstract
The “Literature review” section is too general. In addition, previous studies on magnesium alloy AZ31 BF which is a test material in this article should be included in this section.
R: The literature section has been improved with additional information and appropriate references.
Equation 3: "K?" ?
R: To clarify this point, additional information has been added just below equation 3
The writing style of parameters used in Equations in main test should be uniform (italics).
R: The writing style has been updated according to the suggestion.
PP and OP in Equations (4) and (5) should be explained below Eq. (1), rather than in line 266.
R: The explanation of PP and OP was added according to the suggestion directly under equation 1
line 330: The acronym “NF” has not been defined.
R: The definition of the acronym “Nf” was added to the manuscript
Mpa should be written as MPa.
R: The text was revised with regard to the indicated error
The results are merely discussed and is limited to comparing the experimental observation. The authors are encouraged to include a discussion section and critically discuss the observations from this investigation with existing literature.
R: The actual "Results and Discussion" section has been split into "Results" and "Discussion," and additional information has been added to the "Discussion" section.
Further, the analysis of the fracture surfaces can be discussed which will be helpful to understand the initiation and development of fracture.
R: Since the subject of this article was the comparison between the fatigue strength of AZ31BF under proportional and non-proportional loading, it was decided not to include the fracture analysis in this study. This topic was reserved for another article currently in preparation.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
in the revised version of the manuscript, author has made necessary corrections including all remarks from reviewers.
