Crankshaft HCF Research Based on the Simulation of Electromagnetic Induction Quenching Approach and a New Fatigue Damage Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is not well written. This is understandable given that the authors are non-native English writers. I ask the authors to take help from English speaking colleagues to improve the quality of writing. This is necessary since this ms suffers from significant writing issues, starting from abstract. My other comments follow:

1-      Fig. 1 looks like it is copied from other works. If not, high quality picture should be provided.

2-      Captions of Figs. 1 and 2 are not appropriate. While Fig. 2 seems to be a flow chart, the authors wrote caption of it as: “The process of the coordinate transform method”, which makes no sense to me. In fact, captions of all figures should be appropriately provided.

3-      Y-axis of Fig. 5/6 should read as “Temperature/K”, but not “Temperature/ Temperature in K”

4-      Fonts used in all figures should be consistent. Otherwise, it looks very odd.

5-      Data points should be shown in Figure 9/12, rather than showing just a line!

6-      Similar pictures are repeated for a few times because of different specimen. I ask the authors to move them to the supplementary section.

7-      Discussion of results is not appropriate. Significant revision is necessary.

8-      The conclusion section should be rewritten.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present the fatigue analysis of two crack-shafts subjected to multiaxial fatigue. They couple FE modelling and analytical methods and the provide experimental validation.

I have several concerns about this work:

- The format is not admissible, and this apply for references, figures, tables, their corresponding captions, equations, references, etc.

- Geometry of the crackshafts is mandatory. If not, the research is not reproducible.

- The authors do not justify the scietific nature of their work. Right now it is more like an industrial practice.

Moreover:

-Figure 8, for example, does not allow distinguishing between areas in compression and areas in tension.

- The number of figures could be reduced by combining many of them

- Figure 19, or the analogous figure in future versions, should keep same scales in the two axes

-Reference for Femfat is required

-Validation should just compare the experimental number of cycles to failure to the cycles to failure predicted by the model. This would be much clearer.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have revised their paper based on my suggestions. It seems that the quality of the ms is improved compared to its previous version. I suggest publication of this work. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This new version is significatively better than the original. Thanks for your efforts in answering my comments and suggetions. In my opinion, it can now be published.