Deformation Behavior and Experiments on a Light Alloy Seamless Tube via a Tandem Skew Rolling Process
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The list of detailed remarks is given below:
The tittle is "...ligth alloy seamless tube..." but in experimental part (and also in numerical) Authors used 1045 steel and high strength steel 42CrMo, while these types of material is rather not in the area of light alloys. In the chapter "numerical modeling" Authors show only 1045 steel, why there is no information about another two types of material? The references are dominated by Authors' articles, 13 from 20. In my opinion Authors should make a greater variety of literature. Authors used in current article some data from their earlier publications, but they did not citated it - why?Author Response
Reviewer 1:
Comment 1. The tittle is "...ligth alloy seamless tube..." but in experimental part (and also in numerical) Authors used 1045 steel and high strength steel 42CrMo, while these types of material is rather not in the area of light alloys.
Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s kind advice. So sorry that the1045 steel and high strength steel 42CrMo really don't belong to the types of material of light alloys. Firstly, the TSR process was originally developed to manufacture seamless tubes which were difficult to deform (e. g. high strength steel 42CrMo, (not this merely but also) ), or only deform in a narrow range of temperature (e. g. AZ31 alloy, (not this merely but also) ), because the temperature drop is slower in this process. Unfortunately, this process was still only experimental, whose reason maybe the industry environment and unrecognized process. But, we still try our best. Secondly, for a long time the 1045 steel was used in experiments, the production process of which had been mastered. So, we tried to do experiment in other materials, high strength steel 42CrMo , magnesium alloy AZ31, and titanium alloy TC4. But, the experiment of titanium alloy TC4 was not completed smoothly, which was still in stage of analysis and attempt. Thirdly, in simulation, the models of high strength steel 42CrMo and magnesium alloy AZ31 had also been investigated. But the final results were not very idea. So, there was no the information about them this time. I believe that we will do our best to complete it, and produce better research in the future. Finally, under the suggestion, it really existed inappropriate relationship between Title and Context. Maybe I could alter the Title.
Comment 2. In the chapter "numerical modeling" Authors show only 1045 steel, why there is no information about another two types of material?
Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s kind advice. So sorry about that. As was shown in Comment 1, one reason was that the simulation results of them were not very idea, and the other was that it could be obtained the deformation process of tubes by FEM. It was just my opinion. I’m sure that if the corresponding information of another two types of material could be added, the context and structure of the paper would be substantial.
Comment 3. The references are dominated by Authors' articles, 13 from 20. In my opinion Authors should make a greater variety of literature.
Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. It was really that there were much references dominated by our research team. In terms of tube rolled by skew rolling process, I know there are many experts and scholars from various countries. In terms of tube rolled by tandem skew rolling process, it is studied by few people relatively. Obviously, the technical process and automation level of tube production is still relatively backward to developed country, so it just need to keep trying to innovate in this field. Only I just wanted to share the research achievement, which was no other meaning about the reference. It was my reason. So sorry. I had added and made the reference diversification and greater variety.
Comment 4. Authors used in current article some data from their earlier publications, but they did not cited it.
Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. So sorry to my mistake for the lack of the earlier publication, which should be cited in this paper. Maybe I thought they were published and edited by Chinese. I had added and cited in the revised manuscript.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
The production of seamless pipes is nowadays particularly needed in the energy, aerospace and automotive industries.
The topic of the article is therefore up to date.
General comments
Three different materials were used for the research. What was the reason for using other materials? The achieved results are difficult to generalize for other materials.
On what basis were the temperatures 1200, 1250 and 400 oC chosen? Wouldn't it be advisable to try more temperatures when rolling the same material? This was not done in simulations.
The input data on materials is very influenced by the simulation result. What input data were entered during the simulations? This data is completely missing from the article.
The obtained results are probably only valid for the test materials and temperatures. Can they also be generalized for other materials?
How does friction affect the process?
Indication Ø40 (line 79) needs to be adjusted.
Author Response
Manuscript ID: metals-668922
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Deformation Behavior and Experiment on Light Alloy Seamless Tube in Tandem Skew Rolling Process
Dear Chief Editor / Reviewers,
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “metals-668922”.
We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. And, attached please find the responses to the reviewers.
We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. And we sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published on “metals”.
Looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Mao
Please find the following response to the comments of reviewers.
Response to the reviewer’s comments.
Reviewer 2:
Comment 1. Three different materials were used for the research. What was the reason for using other materials? The achieved results are difficult to generalize for other materials.
Response: Thanks for your comments on our paper. About this question, it was also mentioned in other reviewer’s comment. It was really my lack of consideration. I’d like to try and explain.
Firstly, the TSR process was originally developed to manufacture seamless tubes which were difficult to deform (e. g. high strength steel 42CrMo, (not this merely but also) ), or only deform in a narrow range of temperature (e. g. AZ31 alloy, (not this merely but also) ), because the temperature drop is slower in this process. Unfortunately, this process was still only experimental, whose reason maybe the industry environment and unrecognized process. But, we still try our best.
Secondly, for a long time the 1045 steel was used in experiments, the production process of which had been mastered. So, we tried to do experiment in other materials, high strength steel 42CrMo , magnesium alloy AZ31, and titanium alloy TC4. But, the experiment of titanium alloy TC4 was not completed smoothly, which was still in stage of analysis and attempt. However, the experiment results of high strength steel 42CrMo and magnesium alloy AZ31 were relatively good.
Thirdly, maybe I just wanted to share the current research achievement of tubes of high strength steel 42CrMo and magnesium alloy AZ31 by TSR process. And I also wanted to get more comment and suggestion. So thanks very much.
Finally, I agreed that, for different materials, the achieved results was different to each other. For a same process, it could be use to obtain different material tubes. The follow-up research will focus on light alloy, which would be widely used in aerospace, offshore oil, etc.
Comment 2. On what basis were the temperatures 1200, 1250 and 400 oC chosen? Wouldn't it be advisable to try more temperatures when rolling the same material? This was not done in simulations.
Response: Thanks for your comments on our paper.
In experiment, the bloom rolling temperatures were selected different values for different materials. The temperature at 1200℃ was selected to steel 1045. The temperature at 1250℃ was selected to high strength steel 42CrMo. And the temperature at 400℃ was selected to magnesium alloy AZ31. For the same material, it could be selected to try more temperatures in experiment, but the range of temperatures must be selected within limits. For example, the temperature range from 1100℃ to 1250℃ could be selected to steel 1045, while the range from 350℃ to 450℃ could be selected to magnesium alloy AZ31. The basis of the chosen temperatures for different materials were that, it would give full play to their good plastic deformation capacity under corresponding high temperature.
In simulation, the models of high strength steel 42CrMo and magnesium alloy AZ31 had also been investigated. But the final results were not very idea. In the preliminary work, it did not spend a lot of time on them. So, there was no the information about them this time. I believe that we will do our best to produce better research in the future.
Comment 3. The input data on materials is very influenced by the simulation result. What input data were entered during the simulations? This data is completely missing from the article.
Response: Thanks for your comments on our paper. The suggestions are all valuable and very helpful for improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.
So sorry to make some mistakes about the lack of some input data during the simulations. Some data about the geometric dimension of rollers, plug, mandrel had been described in “2.1. Experimental Test”, which were the same as to the ones in experiment. In simulations, the parameters, such as temperature, coefficient of heat exchange, friction factor, etc., had also been described in this section. Maybe the missing data were about the billet, such as geometric dimension, materials type, number of mesh, element type. The corresponding modification had been added in this section in this revised manuscript.
Comment 4. The obtained results are probably only valid for the test materials and temperatures. Can they also be generalized for other materials?
Response: Thanks for your comments on our paper.
I partially agreed the standpoint. For the same kind of material, it could be generalized. For example, the obtained results from steel 1045 could be probably generalized for steel 1020, 1025, 1035. Even so, there are fine distinctions in them. But for different kind of material, it could not be generalized each other. For example, the obtained results from magnesium alloy AZ31 must not fit in titanium alloy TC4. Because there are many factors affecting the results, e.g., deformation temperature, deformation rate, deformation degree, which affect the plastic deformation process. Currently, it must need lots of theoretical analysis and experimental research for other new material.
Comment 5. How does friction affect the process?
Response: Thanks for your comments on our paper. The suggestions are all valuable and very helpful for improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.
Friction is a important factor for rolling smoothly in the process. In my previous job, the greater the friction, the easier to roll smoothly, and the less time it spent in simulation. Similarly, the greater the friction factor between billet and rollers, the greater the roll force in experiment.
In order to roll smoothly, necessary human measures usually should be done to increase the friction when the roller’s surface were not well after using a long time, in experiment. In simulations, it should be selected greater friction factor in a contain extent. Even so, it always happened to some uncertainties in simulation.
Comment 6. Indication Ø40 (line 79) needs to be adjusted.
Response: Thanks for your comments on our paper. I had adjusted the indication Ø40 (line 79) in this revised manuscript.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presented the deformation behaviour of light alloy tubes. Initially, FEM analysis was conducted and then the results were verified by the experimental one. It is concluded that tandem skew rolling (TSR) process produces high quality finished product and the conclusion was drawn based on the discussion and experimental results. The paper is interesting, however, before publication following needs to be addressed:
There are few grammatical errors and an English editing is necessary. Please add a scale bar in each figures. For the FEM simulation please include the inputs such as materials type, number of mesh, element type, stress strain relationship etc.Author Response
Manuscript ID: metals-668922
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Deformation Behavior and Experiment on Light Alloy Seamless Tube in Tandem Skew Rolling Process
Dear Chief Editor / Reviewers,
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “metals-668922”.
We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. And, attached please find the responses to the reviewers.
We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. And we sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published on “metals”.
Looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Mao
Please find the following response to the comments of reviewers.
Response to the reviewer’s comments.
Reviewer 3:
Comment 1. There are few grammatical errors and an English editing is necessary.
Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have reprocessed the manuscript for some inappropriate context.
Comment 2. Please add a scale bar in each figures.
Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have added the bar for figure if necessary, e.g., Figure 9.
Comment 3. For the FEM simulation please include the inputs such as materials type, number of mesh, element type, stress strain relationship etc.
Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. The suggestions are all valuable and very helpful for improving this paper. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, the corresponding modification had been added in this section in this revised manuscript.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Improved and corrected issues are satisfying.
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
Comment 1. The Improved and corrected issues are satisfying.
Response: Thanks for your comments on our paper. There must be some context which could be revised adequately. I hope I will have the honor to get more communication, more advice and help in academic sector in the future. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
