Fundamental Investigations to Evaluate the Influence of Notching Processes on a Subsequent Cyclic Bending Process for the Production of Wire Cores
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
I think the article should be reviewed and missing information filled in before it is published in the journal. The article is generally well written, but there are some points that should be revised to improve the quality of the article. Some comments were made in this way.
- The abstract is very general, it should not be explained and should show the important aspects of the research.
The abstract was revised considering the required maximum number of words. The general introduction is now followed by a more detailed description of the study and its findings. Finally, the elaborated method for wire strip production is explicitly described.
- In the introductory part, a relatively small number of literary sources are described. Although the main goal of the research is clear, the authors should also highlight the contribution of the research. That is, the contribution in relation to previous research.
Unfortunately, the number of research studies on the described topic is low. The introduction was revised by giving further information and literary sources on reinforced concrete. Moreover, the known scientific studies on the performance of steel fibers produced by the innovative process chain are included. They only consider its application and state the lack of evaluation of the manufacturing process.
- In the second section describing the material, the authors should provide more information about the leaf material. Why is this material subjected to testing...?
A reference to the hardening behavior, which is relevant for the properties’ changes during notching, is added.
- The third and fourth chapters begin with similar sentences that should be changed.
Changed.
- In the fourth chapter, the authors should better compare the results with other similar researches. It is suggested that the results of the present study should be compared with some similar studies that have already been conducted.
Unfortunately, the number of similar research studies besides the own publications is very limited.
- Equations 1 and 2 must be cited in the text.
Changed.
- The conclusion section is too long. It is suggested that the conclusion section should be better structured. This section should be summarized in one paragraph of 250-300 words.
The conclusion was revised and shortened.
- The authors refer quite frequently to their earlier research, more specifically to reference 5. There are also many self-citations in the literature review. Of the 13 references listed, 6 are from the authors of this article. Therefore, the analysis of other research should be included in the article.
Further researches were cited.
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Why in Figure 19 - FEM Analysis of Notched Stamping, is the outer notch selected? At the same time, a central notch was selected for rolling.
2. Will this difference affect the comparative results and how?
3. A small number of literature items.
Author Response
- Why in Figure 19 - FEM Analysis of Notched Stamping, is the outer notch selected? At the same time, a central notch was selected for rolling.
As described, the outer notch is selected on purpose because of comparable hardening distribution. Figure 15 shows hardening of all seven notches.
- Will this difference affect the comparative results and how?
As given in the outlook, an effect of the hardening distribution cannot be excluded, but a regarding study is still pending.
- A small number of literature items.
Further literature was added.
Reviewer 3 Report
State of the art/motivation: Please briefly explain the classical forming route ( split sheet metal) and state the benefit of the notch stamping method. Neither the introduction nor the motivation explains where the advantages of notch stamping are compared to notch rolling and where the benefit of notch stamping is. Classically, material strengthening is introduced, describe why you do not want this strengthening.
Method: The chapter is not structured in a comprehensible way. Please follow a structure like first the material characterisation, then the forming, then the evaluation with micrographs and analysis of the fracture surface and the hardness examination.
Concerning the forming/separation of the material: You want to do notching first. You have 2 variants that you compare. Then you want to separate the wire by bending. Please use this sequence also for the explanations of the two methods stamping and rolling. Then you have the section: "2.3. Experimental design and evaluation methods" Why do you limit yourself to rolling in figure 7 and do not mention notching by stamping?
Fig 6. The parameter d has no influence on the process chain. Why is it mentioned?
In Table 2 you show many parameters, why do you have only 2 parameters in the DEO (Table 1)?
Results: The chapter is not well structured. It is unclear why you present and discuss Fig 8 at first. A suggestion from the reviewer is: first show the differences for both notching methods and then analyse the follow-up process bending and the analysis of the fracture surface.
Discussion: You measure forces or moments. Please evaluate the energy. For example, show the different process costs using the process time if necessary.
The paper shows interesting and good results, but in summary the following points should be changed. Write a motivation why you want to investigate a new process variant and build a clear structure throughout the paper. Include all results in the discussion. The English is flawed.
Author Response
State of the art/motivation: Please briefly explain the classical forming route ( split sheet metal) and state the benefit of the notch stamping method. Neither the introduction nor the motivation explains where the advantages of notch stamping are compared to notch rolling and where the benefit of notch stamping is. Classically, material strengthening is introduced, describe why you do not want this strengthening.
I am afraid that this is a misunderstanding. The industrial process chain is assumed fix – notch rolling and cyclic bending. The continuous production characteristic is a huge benefit compared to the conventional process chain based on wire drawing, which is briefly mentioned in the introduction. It is “only” intended to substitute the notch rolling for laboratory purposes to improve the adjustability and the effect analysis. I revised the abstract and the introduction to point this out more clearly.
Method: The chapter is not structured in a comprehensible way. Please follow a structure like first the material characterisation, then the forming, then the evaluation with micrographs and analysis of the fracture surface and the hardness examination.
The structure was revised.
Concerning the forming/separation of the material: You want to do notching first. You have 2 variants that you compare. Then you want to separate the wire by bending. Please use this sequence also for the explanations of the two methods stamping and rolling. Then you have the section: "2.3. Experimental design and evaluation methods" Why do you limit yourself to rolling in figure 7 and do not mention notching by stamping?
The structure was revised. I first consider the rolling and cyclic bending, because the interaction analysis is the base for the subsequent analysis of the notch stamping. I first derive relevant properties of rolled wire strip based on the interaction analysis, and then derive a method to map those properties by notch stamping. I hope the new structure clarifies that.
Fig 6. The parameter d has no influence on the process chain. Why is it mentioned?
d is the tool distance, and its minimum value (dmin) defines the resulting web height (comparable to the rolling gap) and thus has influence on the process chain.
In Table 2 you show many parameters, why do you have only 2 parameters in the DEO (Table 1)?
For overview, Table 1 only lists the variable parameters, so the considered parameter settings for the experimental study. After describing the results, Table 2 also considers all resulting parameters.
Results: The chapter is not well structured. It is unclear why you present and discuss Fig 8 at first. A suggestion from the reviewer is: first show the differences for both notching methods and then analyse the follow-up process bending and the analysis of the fracture surface.
See above: The structure was revised. I first consider the rolling and cyclic bending, because the interaction analysis is the base for the subsequent analysis of the notch stamping. I first derive relevant properties of rolled wire strip based on the interaction analysis, and then derive a method to map those properties by notch stamping. I hope the new structure clarifies that.
Discussion: You measure forces or moments. Please evaluate the energy. For example, show the different process costs using the process time if necessary.
See above: The process costs are not relevant at this moment, because the general, industrial process chain is not adapted but only the method for laboratory research.
The paper shows interesting and good results, but in summary the following points should be changed. Write a motivation why you want to investigate a new process variant and build a clear structure throughout the paper. Include all results in the discussion. The English is flawed.
I hope that my motivation is clear through the revision of the abstract and introduction. Moreover, the consequent structure (interaction study – notch stamping) hopefully improves the understanding.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I consider the paper in this form ready for publication. The authors have responded correctly to the first review. I have two suggestions.
1. In lines 70 and 72, it is unnecessary to cite literature 10 because it has been cited earlier.
2. In the last paragraph of the introductory section, line 96, the authors should clearly identify the contribution of their research.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing again and giving further constructive suggestions.
1. In lines 70 and 72, it is unnecessary to cite literature 10 because it has been cited earlier.
Adapated, also later on during comparable citing.
2. In the last paragraph of the introductory section, line 96, the authors should clearly identify the contribution of their research
An additional final sentence tries to specify the purpose and application of the findings.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have incorporated the comments well.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing again. I performed a further check on spelling and language mistakes and hope to have improved the paper's quality.
