Surface Polishing of an Inconel 625 Bar by a Super-Fast MAF Process for a Solenoid Valve Stem Used in a Hydrogen Tank

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper covers the surface polishing of an Inconel 625 bar by a super-fast MAF process for a solenoid valve stem used in a hydrogen tank. Reviewer considers that the following revisions are necessary in order to improve the paper.

1. Figure 3: “regulator” → “Regulator”

2. “Rotation speed” is used in Table 3 although “rotational speed” is used in section 5. These words lack uniformity.

3. SJ-400 is used in order to measure surface roughness. “With a surface roughness reduced to 0.02 mm under the optimal condition” → The relation between the accuracy of SJ-400 and 0.02 mm should be described clearly. In addition, the repeatability should be described.

4. The software used in FEA structural analysis should be described in section 5. 3.

Please check English language.

Author Response

We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.

Thank you so much for your comment. According to the reviewer comments. The quality of paper has been improved accordingly the the reviewer’s comments.

The Response to Reviewer comment can be found as the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest adding a short summary of the state of knowledge on this topic and emphasizing the novelty of the research at the end of the literature review.

Figure 6, roughness measurements are characterized by a large dispersion,  why it was decided to perform the average of 3 measurements (and not, for example, 5). Was the sample size (number of measurements) determined from the formula?

what was the rounding radius of the diamond measuring tip of the roughness measuring device

Figure 10 and  11 is divided into a) and b) and this is not specified in the figure caption

Author Response

We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.

Thank you so much for your comment. According to the reviewer comments. The quality of paper has been improved accordingly the the reviewer’s comments.

The Response to Reviewer comment can be found as the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript Surface Polishing of an Inconel 625 Bar by a Super-Fast MAF Process for a Solenoid Valve Stem Used in a Hydrogen Tank was reviewed. The manuscript presents good experimental quality and very objective results. However, for publication, I suggest some revisions:

1. Indicate the percentage of self-citation.

2. I suggest that the introduction be revised and the inclusion of other references that will enrich the manuscript.

3. Inform how the chemical composition and mechanical properties data indicated in Tables 1 and 2 were obtained. If the authors of this manuscript carried them out, indicate the techniques used, as well as the brands and models of the equipment.

4. Explain better the machining process for producing bars before MAF. Indicate the name of the technique used, as well as the brand and model of equipment.

5. Page 3/13 – lines 107-113 – I suggest citing references that indicate the statement.

6. Figure 3 – Was the indicated scheme produced by the authors or based on some reference? If the authors used a reference, indicate that the scheme was adapted and cite the reference(s). If this type of equipment is related to some patent, cite the patent and its registration numbers.

7. Figure 4b – Same as item 3, without indicating the patent.

8. Page 5/13 – lines 159-161 – Indicate the manufacturers of each abrasive.

9. Page 5/13 – lines 166 – Indicate the type of iron electrolytic powder used and the manufacturer.

10. Page 5/13 – lines 166-167 – Indicate the type of lubricant and the manufacturer.

11. Table 4 – The references that indicate the properties of abrasive particles do not inform all the properties of the abrasive particles indicated in the Table. Review, change or insert new references.

12. Page 7/13 – lines 226-230 – Could the authors indicate references that can confirm the statements?

13. Adjust the conclusions according to the changes indicated.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English must be reviewed and improved.

Author Response

We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.

Thank you so much for your comment. According to the reviewer comments. The quality of paper has been improved accordingly the the reviewer’s comments.

The Response to Reviewer comment can be found as the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this paper, a super-fast magnetic abrasive finishing (MAF) polishing process of Inconel 625 bar for solenoid valve was proposed. The cylindrical surface of Inconel 625 bars was polished by super-fast MAF process with different RPM. The polishing characteristics of the s super-fast MAF were evaluated and optimized. Finally, a set of optimum process conditions are obtained. Under the optimal process conditions (15000 RPM, CNT particles (0.04 μm), PCD diamond abrasive (1 μm), Fe (#200), 0.5 g of hard oil, and 16 min of processing time), the ultra-smooth Inconel 625 bar was obtained, and the surface roughness (Ra) was reduced to 0.02um. The process simulation results by Ansys show that the treated Inconel 625 bar has appropriate strain, equivalent stress and safety factor. This proves that it is feasible to polish Inconel 625 bar by using ultra-fast magnetic grinding and polishing process.

The experimental and simulation results show that the surface quality of Inconel 625 bar can be improved by the super-fast MAF polishing process. This article is logical and clear. But there are still some issues to be resolved before it can be accepted.

1. Can the data related to surface roughness in the article provide relevant test results?

2. What are the considerations for the choice of abrasive type?

3. Why is the optimal speed 15000RPM? Has there been any theoretical analysis?

4. Please use the three-line table in the paper, and Table 5-6 does not meet the requirements.

5. Can you provide the results of the surface microstructure and roughness of the workpiece after different kinds of abrasive processing?

The English language need to be improved

Author Response

We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.

Thank you so much for your comment. According to the reviewer comments. The quality of paper has been improved accordingly the the reviewer’s comments.

The Response to Reviewer comment can be found as the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Round 2

1. Please indicate the percentage of self-citation.

2. I suggest correctly identifying Figure 4. Identify who is (A) and who is (B).

Author Response

We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.

(1) Comment: Please indicate the percentage of self-citation.

Response: Thank you so much for your comment.

- We have removed some author’s citations from the paper.

- The number of citations has been increased.

Before revision: The total of citations is 15 references.

After revision: The total of citations is increased from 15 to 34 references.

(2) Comment: I suggest correctly identifying Figure 4. Identify who is (A) and who is (B).

Response: The image in Figure 4 has been revised. (a), and (b) has been added to the image.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf