Design Theory and Experimental Research of Ultrasonic Fatigue Test
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. From “There are three displacement nodes D, E and F (maximum stress and zero displacement) and three stress nodes A, B and C (maximum stress and zero displacement) in the vibration direction of the whole system.”
~ three stress nodes A, B and C (maximum stress and zero displacement)
→ ~ three stress nodes A, B and C (zero stress and maximum displacement)
2. Isn't this paper based on ASM Vol. 8, Mechanical Testing and Evaluation?
Therefore, it is preferable to cite it in a reference.
3. The captions of the vertical and horizontal axes of Fig. 7 must be accurately marked to convey the results well.
4. The description such as “For the resonant frequencies, L1, L2, L3 and R1 are negatively correlated and R2 is positively correlated, meaning that as the values of the first four parameters increase, the resonant frequency of the specimen decreases, conversely, the frequency increases as the diameter of the large end increases.” does not match with Fig. 8.
Confirmation is needed.
5. Figs. 7, 8 and 9 are too small to recognize the captions on the vertical and horizontal axes.
Authors need to increase the picture size to increase the resolution.
6. From “The dimensions of the optimized sample were fine-tuned to take into account the actual machining of the specimen, and the dimensions obtained from the above analysis were kept to one decimal place to reduce the machining accuracy. Therefore, the value of the actual machined sample can be: L1 = 12.7 mm, L2 = 10.5 mm, L3 = 5.1 mm，r1 = 2.1 mm, r2 = 5.6 mm.”
1) Do r1 and r2 mean R1 and R2, respectively?
2) “L1 = 12.7 mm, L2 = 10.5 mm, L3 = 5.1 mm，r1 = 2.1 mm, r2 = 5.6 mm” is different from the values shown in Table 4.
Why does “L1 = 12.7 mm, L2 = 10.5 mm, L3 = 5.1 mm，r1 = 2.1 mm, r2 = 5.6 mm” differ from the values shown in Table 4?
7. In the description of Figure 13, the black curve is said that the results were obtained from the conventional fatigue test.
What kind of fatigue test is the conventional fatigue test? It should be specifically mentioned.
8. It is necessary to indicate which part of this study about ultrasonic fatigue test is original compared to other published studies. It will help to improve the quality of this paper.
The originality on this paper would be better to mention in the abstract, introduction and conclusion, additionally.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: From “There are three displacement nodes D, E and F (maximum stress and zero displacement) and three stress nodes A, B and C (maximum stress and zero displacement) in the vibration direction of the whole system.”
~ three stress nodes A, B and C (maximum stress and zero displacement)
→ ~ three stress nodes A, B and C (zero stress and maximum displacement)
Response 1: We were really sorry for our careless mistakes. Thank you for your reminder. The incorrect description of stresses and displacements in line 117 of the manuscript has been corrected.
Point 2: Isn't this paper based on ASM Vol. 8, Mechanical Testing and Evaluation?
Therefore, it is preferable to cite it in a reference.
Response 2: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. After careful review, we did cite the theory from ASM Handbook Volume 8: Mechanical Testing and Evaluation and we add this book to the references, its number is 22.
Point 3: The captions of the vertical and horizontal axes of Fig. 7 must be accurately marked to convey the results well.
Response 3: It is really a giant mistake to the whole quality of our article. We feel sorry for our carelessness. We have redrawn Figure 7 and now its vertical and horizontal coordinates can be clearly seen to convey the results.
Point 4: The description such as “For the resonant frequencies, L1, L2, L3 and R1 are negatively correlated and R2 is positively correlated, meaning that as the values of the first four parameters increase, the resonant frequency of the specimen decreases, conversely, the frequency increases as the diameter of the large end increases.” does not match with Fig. 8.
Confirmation is needed.
Response 4: Thanks for your careful checks. We are sorry for our carelessness. Based on your comments, we have made the corrections to make the the textual textual narrative part of Figure 8 (line 334 - 339) consistent with the trend of the curve shown in the picture.
Point 5: Figs. 7, 8 and 9 are too small to recognize the captions on the vertical and horizontal axes.
Authors need to increase the picture size to increase the resolution.
Response 5: We appreciate for your valuable comment. We have increased the font size of the horizontal and vertical axes in Figures 7 and 9. We have redrawn Figure 8, and we have added a description of the Figure 8 axes in line 330 of the manuscript to reduce confusion.
Point 6: From “The dimensions of the optimized sample were fine-tuned to take into account the actual machining of the specimen, and the dimensions obtained from the above analysis were kept to one decimal place to reduce the machining accuracy. Therefore, the value of the actual machined sample can be: L1 = 12.7 mm, L2 = 10.5 mm, L3 = 5.1 mm，r1 = 2.1 mm, r2 = 5.6 mm.”
1) Do r1 and r2 mean R1 and R2, respectively?
2) “L1 = 12.7 mm, L2 = 10.5 mm, L3 = 5.1 mm，r1 = 2.1 mm, r2 = 5.6 mm” is different from the values shown in Table 4.
Why does “L1 = 12.7 mm, L2 = 10.5 mm, L3 = 5.1 mm，r1 = 2.1 mm, r2 = 5.6 mm” differ from the values shown in Table 4?
Response 6:
（1）Thank you so much for your careful check. This error was caused by our carelessness and we have changed the radius symbol to a uniform uppercase R.
（2）We gratefully appreciate for your valuable suggestion. We apologise for not making this clear in the manuscript. The data in Table 4 are the three sets of optimal solutions obtained by software optimisation, and to reduce error we have chosen to use the average of these three sets of data to machine the specimens, so the data “L1 = 12.7 mm, L2 = 10.5 mm, L3 = 5.1 mm，R1 = 2.1 mm, R2 = 5.6 mm” is the average of the data in the table. We have added this section in line 361.
Point 7: In the description of Figure 13, the black curve is said that the results were obtained from the conventional fatigue test.
What kind of fatigue test is the conventional fatigue test? It should be specifically mentioned.
Response 7: We gratefully appreciate for your comment. The traditional fatigue test mentioned in the manuscript refers to the high-cycle fatigue test. According to your suggestion, we have cited relevant paper on the S-N curve for low cycle fatigue. This paper is numbered 33, its title is “The High Cycle Fatigue Behavior of Aluminum Alloy”.
Point 8: It is necessary to indicate which part of this study about ultrasonic fatigue test is original compared to other published studies. It will help to improve the quality of this paper.
The originality on this paper would be better to mention in the abstract, introduction and conclusion, additionally.
Response 8: Thank you for your comment. Most of the published studies on ultrasonic fatigue tensile testing have focused on the analysis of sample fracture morphology and fracture mechanisms, with little mention of the complete test procedure and sample optimisation methods. This manuscript presents a complete procedure of ultrasonic fatigue tensile testing from the theoretical analysis to the investigation of the test law, and uses an original method to optimise the sample size, and then, the influence trend of sample size on frequency and stress was analyzed, which provides a new idea for the design of samples in ultrasonic fatigue testing and provides a reference for subsequent ultrasonic fatigue testing of different materials. And as you suggested, we have mentioned the originality in the abstract, introduction and conclusion of the manuscript.
Thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is about ultrasonic fatigue testing in general. It discusses the possibilities and problems of this testing method.
1: The authors should proof space after punctuation e.g. line 50. The authors changed between aluminum and aliminium
2: Line 78: Really 55mm - please check if it is 55µm
3: Equation (2) is missing
4: Fig. 5b: please check the graphic, it seems to be the very same as Fig. 5a
5: Fig. 7: Font size of the axe label is too small
6: Line 344: Reference to Table 4, not Table 3
7: Line 364: ample -> sample
8: Fig. 13: The straight line of the conventional fatigue tests is surprising - there is no scatter, also the results of US fatigue tests are very straight. Are these the original data points?
9: Line 421: "...loading frequency of... has an effect...": The authors should discuss the frequency effect and possibilities to handle this effect. E.g.: Geilen et al. "On the Influence of Control Type and Strain Rate on the Lifetime of 50CrMo4". I think point 9 is the most important point for this paper.
10: Line 441: The cited paper discussesTi6Al4V - is it possible to compare with Al6063? Does the cited paper show "step-like bumps"?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The authors should proof space after punctuation e.g. line 50. The authors changed between aluminum and aliminium
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion, and we have proof spaces after punctuation now in line 52. And “aluminium” in the manuscript has been uniformly changed to “aluminum”.
Point 2: Line 78: Really 55mm - please check if it is 55µm
Response 2: We were really sorry for our careless mistakes. Thank you for your reminder. We have changed the units to µm (Now in line 80).
Point 3: Equation (2) is missing
Response 3: We feel sorry for our carelessness. In our resubmitted manuscript, Equation (2) is supplemented. Thanks for your correction.
Point 4: Fig. 5b: please check the graphic, it seems to be the very same as Fig. 5a
Response 4: It is really a giant mistake to the whole quality of our article. The wrong graphic in Figure 5b was placed. We feel sorry for our carelessness. We have corrected graphic and we also feel great thanks for your point out.
Point 5: Fig. 7: Font size of the axe label is too small
Response 5: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. As suggested by the reviewer, we have redrawn the Figure 7 and increase the font size of the axes lable.
Point 6: Line 344: Reference to Table 4, not Table 3
Response 6: I apologize for making such a mistake through carelessness, and this error now in line 356 has been corrected.
Point 7: Line 364: ample -> sample
Response 7: We were really sorry for our careless mistakes. Thank you for your reminder (Now in line 377).
Point 8: Fig. 13: The straight line of the conventional fatigue tests is surprising - there is no scatter, also the results of US fatigue tests are very straight. Are these the original data points?
Response 8: We appreciate your suggestion very much. We redraw this diagram based on the original test data and add all three sets of data points from the ultrasonic fatigue test to the diagram. Due to the addition of three pictures, the number of this picture is now Figure 16.
Point 9: Line 421: "...loading frequency of... has an effect...": The authors should discuss the frequency effect and possibilities to handle this effect. E.g.: Geilen et al. "On the Influence of Control Type and Strain Rate on the Lifetime of 50CrMo4". I think point 9 is the most important point for this paper.
Response 9: We think this is an excellent suggestion. We have discussed the frequency effect and possibilities to handle this effect (line 457). Thanks again for your valuable suggestion.
Point 10: Line 441: The cited paper discusses Ti6Al4V - is it possible to compare with Al6063? Does the cited paper show "step-like bumps"?
Response 10: Thanks for your careful checks. We apologize for the inappropriate placement of this citation in our manuscript. we have corrected this error and added new citation to the manuscript, its title is “Experimental Evidence of Specimen-Size Effects on EN-AW6082 Aluminum Alloy in VHCF Regime”.
Thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript present some information about the design of Design Theory and Experimental Research of Ultrasonic Fatigue Test .
The theory, and design is basically correct, although definitely not original, and carried out following well known literature references.
The optimization of the sample is more original, but is not clear both the optimization algorithm nor the obtained advantage.
The experimental campaign I very limited, since only one sample per stress amplitude is analyzed, and this does not allow for any assessment or treatment of (well known) results dispersion.
I strongly suggest to improve the paper adding more details about the testing machine implementation (procedure and results validation, details about the control procedure and monitored results, results of deformation measurements and temperature, ...)
Last but not least, I suggest the reading of some recent works on VHCF of aluminum alloys, with particular respect to the issues of size-effects and VHCF and corrosion, both not mentioned in the manuscript (e.g. [10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001807] [10.3390/app11094272][10.1111/ffe.13242] [10.1007/978-3-030-41057-5])
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
The manuscript present some information about the design of Design Theory and Experimental Research of Ultrasonic Fatigue Test .
The theory, and design is basically correct, although definitely not original, and carried out following well known literature references.
The optimization of the sample is more original, but is not clear both the optimization algorithm nor the obtained advantage.
Response 1: Thanks for your careful checks. We apologize for not mentioning these in the manuscript. We used the optimization module of the finite element software workbench, and finally decided on “Screening” as the optimization method by comparing different optimization algorithms. We have supplemented this part to line 354 of the manuscript.
Point 2: The experimental campaign I very limited, since only one sample per stress amplitude is analyzed, and this does not allow for any assessment or treatment of (well known) results dispersion.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We did nine sets of tests with different loading powers, three samples per set, and the data listed in Table 5 is the average of the three. We have redrawn Figure 16 (The original Figure 13) from the original data to make the results more accurate.
Point 3: I strongly suggest to improve the paper adding more details about the testing machine implementation (procedure and results validation, details about the control procedure and monitored results, results of deformation measurements and temperature, ...)
Response 3: We think this is an excellent suggestion. We have supplemented to the manuscript the results about the detection of the computer control system, including test time, temperature and frequency. The results of the monitoring of the displacement sensor and the processing of this result have been supplemented (line 412).
Point 4: Last but not least, I suggest the reading of some recent works on VHCF of aluminum alloys, with particular respect to the issues of size-effects and VHCF and corrosion, both not mentioned in the manuscript (e.g. [10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001807] [10.3390/app11094272][10.1111/ffe.13242] [10.1007/978-3-030-41057-5])
Response 4: Thank you for your nice comments on our article. We have studied these papers carefully and they are certainly important for us to learn a lot that we have not covered, we have added the paper entitled "Experimental Evidence of protest-size Effects on EN-AW6082 Aluminum Alloy in VHCF Regime" recommended by you to the reference. But due to the limitations of our experimental equipment, we were not able to complete corrosion-related tests and we will definitely strengthen our research in this area in the future.
We sincerely hope that this revised manuscript has addressed all your comments and suggestions. We appreciated for reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors corrected the manuscript appropriately in response to the reviewer comments, and the quality of the manuscript was improved.
It is judged that this paper can be published.
Author Response
The authors corrected the manuscript appropriately in response to the reviewer comments, and the quality of the manuscript was improved.
It is judged that this paper can be published.
Response: Thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Some improvement to the manuscript has been added by the authors.
The manuscript now is suitable for publication
Author Response
Some improvement to the manuscript has been added by the authors.
The manuscript now is suitable for publication
Response: Thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript.
