Investigation of the Influence of Hot Forging Parameters on the Closing Conditions of Internal Metallurgical Defects in Zirconium Alloy Ingots

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments:

The closing conditions of internal metallurgical defects in zirconium alloy ingots were investigated systematically by means of physical and numerical modelling. The whole work was designed well in view of problem definition, experiments, numerical tests and the discussion part. The manuscript is worthy of publication after solving the following several questions.

Suggestions:

Some mistakes and questions in the manuscript are as follows:

(1) There are many writing mistakes in the manuscript. Such as:

Line 93, T=770÷950°C;

Line 98, plasticizing stress p;

Line 134, Figure 1÷3;

…

Line 540, from 0,38÷1,08;

…

I suggest that the authors should check manuscript carefully before the next submission to avoid some low-level mistakes.

(2) Line 97 to 101; With the increase of temperature, the range of stress increase becomes larger, viz., 29%, 36% and 43%. Confused about this, please explain in detail. Such variation may be related to deformation microstructures?

(3) The caption of Figure 11, 12, and 13 is wrong. Replace “hydrostatic pressure distribution” with “deformation intensity distribution”.

(4) In order to better observe the difference of hydrostatic pressure distribution between the three different anvil compositions, the scales in Figure 8, 9 and 10 should be consistent. Similarly, Figure 8, 9 and 10 should be the same.

(5) Section 7; Why only discuss the changes after the first and second forging transitions? What about the third and fourth forging transitions?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your comments, we have correction the manuscript and  the full answer was prepared for you in the attached file.

All of the corrections are red text with yellow highlighting in file and in the manuscript also

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The comments can be drawn as follows:
1.Repetitive use of similar sentences in introduction and abstract. Objectives of the work is not mentioned clearly. Grammatical errors and use of hyphenate is observed in the article.
2.Recent literature has not been highlighted
A. "Effect of cutting parameters on tool wear, cutting force and surface roughness in machining of MDN431 alloy using Al and Fe coated tools" Materials Research Express 6 (1), 016401
B. "Tribological behaviour of monolayer and multilayer Ti-based thin solid films deposited on alloy steel"Materials Research Express 6 (2), 026419
3. Materials and methods explanation is not clear.
4. Explanation of the results and discussion needs to be improvised, no experimental standards are used (ASTM or ASM).

Author Response

Dear Reveiwer, 

Thank you for your comments.

1. We have tried to improve the introduction text. It highlighted by green. Re-proofreading and fixed some bugs around the paper text were done too.
2. We have used the old and contemporary literture sourses with rnormal recent 5-10 years sources dominance, including a couple 2020 sources. We consider that it is enough for clear positioning the research problem, its history and recent trends highlighting. Of course, we can add some amount of recent paper citaions, but we can not use the suggested literature about machining and thin film deposition regards to our article about forging technology.
3. For better understanding we have renamed section 2 as «Methodology of plastometric research» and clarificate it. Because the technique for numerical studies of forging a zirconium alloy ingot using a forging geometry tool for welding metallurgical discontinuities is described in detail in Chapter 4. In this chapter, the authors rely on their own experience and literature on this topic, and also describe the geometric shape and dimensions of the simulated metallurgical discontinuities.
4. We do not perform a real experiment in metal, numerical simulations only. Due of it there are no metallography or mechanical testing where ASTM or other standards can be used. The "results and discussion" section was improved in the first paragraph and terminology and drawing captions(highlighted by yellow)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper deals with an interesting topic, but it has some issues that should be addressed before publishing.

1. the introduction should be improved, the problem description is a bit vague, the description of central porosity should be rewritten, not extended but written in a better way. Please be exact in the terminology and in the description of metallurgical processes. The authors should provide a view into the hot deformation mechanisms in the Zr-Nb alloy, softening mechanisms and temperature ranges are not properly discussed and reported, the same goes for the crystallography.

2. The methodology is poorly described, the measurement of porosity and the use of forging equipment is not described in the "materials and methods" section.

3. The paper lacks metallographic evidence, present microstructures, porosity, explain the deformation curves with the help of the microstructure.

4. The conclusions are poorly composed. Please make a better effort to convey your message. They are too long and vague in information, please improve them, you have significant results, it is a shame to waste them with a poor presentation.

5. An overall better discussion on the metallurgical aspect of the alloy should be added, like heating procedures, oxidation of the surface, crystal structure, inclusions, a chemical analysis should be made. The authors are correct when they state that the hot deformation of Zr alloys is not widely reported, that is why they must make a better presentation and not treat the results as just from another well known alloy.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your comments, we have correction the manuscript and  the full answer was prepared for you in the attached file.

All of the corrections are  green highlighting in file and in the manuscript also

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made very little effort to address the first review, please read it again, and follow the suggestions, only points 1 and four out of five have been partially acknowledged (please take them seriously), and there is no clear response.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your additional comment.

we have tried to did it correctly.

please find the attached answer file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf