Study on Physical Mechanisms of Thickness Effect of Incremental Hole-Drilling Method Based on Energy Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

A grammatical review of the manuscript is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion authors must modify/clarify the following issues:

#1) Page 1. Line 8. Please, avoid lumping references. Please include a brief description of each one.

#2) Page 3. Line 71. Please define clearly the aim of the study at the end of the introduction including the research gap based on the state of the art that this study tries to fill.

#3) Page 3. Line 99. Please provide a deeper discussion of the Figure 1.

#4) Page 3. Line 117. Boundary condition including loading must be clearly defined and identified in the mesh.

#5) Page 5. Line 126. For the sake of clarity, Please define clearly how this is applied.

#6) Page 5. Line 135. Please explain how the hole is divided into 20 parts in a more detailed ways in simulations.

#7) Page 5. Line 141. Please be more precise about the mesh size, in addition, please include the mesh convergence analysis and the mesh criteria.

#8) Page 5. Line 143. Please, for the sake of clarity, explain in detail how the quality of the model is ensured. This is a key issue. In addition,  Is it used the automeshing at the vicinity of the hole?.

#9) Figure 2. In my opinion, methods are not properly described in the paper and, hence, a deep description of the FE modelling must be included including material properties, type of analysis (linear-elastic, elastoplastic, ….), boundary conditions including loadings and fixed displacements, contact conditions gauge-material, how the hole drilling is modelled and simulated, meshing including the mesh criteria and the mesh convergence analysis and the number of elements and nodes and the cases of study. This is a key issue that authors must take into account.

#10) Page 5. Line 144. In the paper there is not a description regarding the cases of study nor boundary conditions considered in simulations. For the sake of clarity, please define them clearly in the paper, since it is not clear how boundary conditions are applied in the cases of study analyzed.

#11) Page 6. Line 166. For the sake of clarity, please show how this is measured. In addition explain in detail “not all the specimens are flat”. Please for the sake of clarity, show and describe all the cases of study.

#12) Page 6. Line 170. Figure 4 must be placed after the first citation in the main text. Please do the same hereafter in the manuscript. In addition, please add a deeper discussion including how these results are obtained.

#13) Page 7.  Line 188. This is not clear, please describe the biaxial equal stress model.

#14) Page 7. Line 197. For the sake of clarity, boundary conditions must be included. In addition how bending is caused in the FE simulation?

#15) Page 7. Line 201. Please be more precise and rigorous, stress is never applied, stress is caused by an applied load.

#16) Page 7. Figure 5 and 8. It is not clear enough how these results are obtained, so please add a clear description and discussion.

#17) Page 9. Line 272-274. Please revise this and explain it deeply.

#18) Page 11. Line 328. Please explain deeply (and include this in the main text after the conclusions) the consistency level of results is ensured and obtained.

#19) Page 11. Line 335. This concept is wrong. Stress is not applied. Please revise this accordingly in the paper.

#20) A key weakness of the study is the validation of FE simulations with experimental results, theoretical results or with results obtained from other works in the bibliography. Please correct this issue.

#21) Please in the bibliography add the journal abbreviated name.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Physical Mechanism Study of Thickness Effect of Incremental Hole Drilling Method Based On Energy Analysis

This article describes the investigations on the influence of the sample thickness on the calibration constants of the incremental hole drilling method under three boundary conditions. The influence of the stress distribution over the sample depth is also considered. However, only the results for the twentieth increment of the hole drilling method are presented. Unfortunately, it is not described how strong the specific influence of the determined constants is in relation to the application of ASTM E837.

Nevertheless, the article is relevant for the progress in the hole drilling method, especially for the application on thin workpieces. This article is therefore recommended for publication after minor revision. The language of the paper is well understandable, but further proofreading is recommended.

Line                            Comment

90                               The exact origin of the equations should be specified.

171, 212, 247            To what extent do the determined constants differ from those of the ASTM E837? It would be useful to illustrate the results using a sample data set.

331, 348                    A statement about the magnitude of the effects on a residual stress measurement would support the conclusion.

ok with minor rework

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed my questions and comments.

A final grammatical checking is needed,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Unfortunately, my recommendation must be the same, reconsider after major revisions, since the answers to questions 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11,12 and 20 are not satisfactory since, in my opinion, authors must include in the paper a deeper explanations and analysis of aforesaid questions. In the case of question 20, please add a quantitative validation of FEM results based on bibliography instead of the qualitative validation included in the coverletter.

In addition, the file “metals-2733583-peer-review-v2” where authors include the revised version of the manuscript is almost the same of the first review round and, consequently, none of the modifications that authors describe in the coverletter in all the questions, in particular questions 7, 9 (add a scheme), 10, 16, 19 or 20, are included in such revised version of the manuscript.

For all these reasons, I consider that the manuscript has not been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Metals and, hence, my recommendation is the same reconsider after major revisions.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report