Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: "Process Optimization Method for Reducing the Thickness Difference of Cathode Foil for Power Batteries"

Review Comments:

The manuscript presents an intriguing concept, focusing on the optimization process in battery manufacturing, particularly using rolling and forming equations. The subject is of substantial interest in the field.

However, the manuscript's current format resembles a technical report more than a scientific paper. A restructuring to fit the conventional scientific paper format would greatly enhance its readability and academic value.

The manuscript includes several equations that are integral to the study. However, there is a noticeable absence of citations or references for these equations. Proper attribution is essential for academic integrity and to guide readers for further study.

The model presented in the paper lacks supporting experimental data. Experimental validation is crucial to substantiate the results and claims made in the study. Without this, the reliability of the conclusions drawn remains questionable.

The study on the rolling process seems to omit several critical parameters. Including a broader range of parameters would likely provide a more comprehensive understanding of the process and its optimization.

Given these concerns, particularly the lack of experimental validation and incomplete consideration of relevant parameters, I recommend against publishing this manuscript in its current form in the Metals Journal. Revision addressing these issues could potentially make it a valuable contribution to the field.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English quality is good.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is devoted to examining the impact of negative bending rolls on the disparity in head thickness and the stability of convexity in hot-rolled strips.

The topic of this work corresponds to the goals of the journal. The authors have compiled a meaningful and well-analyzed literature review using up-to-date literature. The experiments were planned properly. In terms of content, the analysis does not raise any objections.

However, there are some comments to improve the quality of a manuscript:

1) In the Introduction chapter, please avoid the group links as [1-5], [8-12], [19-22]. Discuss these references separately.

2) Please clarify at the end of the introduction chapter what the scientific novelty of this research is.

3) On Page 3, Lines 107-109, there is empty space.

4) The mention of Fig. 1 in the text must be before Fig. 1. Also, it will be better to clarify the meaning of curves 1 and 2 in the figure caption.

5) Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from previous studies and the working hypotheses of other authors with relevant links. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible, and the limitations of the work should be highlighted. Future research directions may also be mentioned.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is devoted to optimizing the rolling process of aluminum foil. This study aims to examine the impact of the method of bending rolls on the disparity in head thickness and the stability of convexity in hot-rolled strips. The manuscript is not easy to follow. The authors assumed that the reader has the same way of thinking and is as experienced in the specific rolling process of aluminium foils as the authors.

In the section 2.1. the authors discuss technological details without first explaining the geometry of rolling machine and rolling technology. Roller dimensions, process parameters and friction conditions are not presented. Nothing. In Chapter 2, the authors immediately moved on to optimization of a process that was not explained to the reader. In the same way, Table 1 does not provide any comprehensible information to the reader.

Subsequent chapters only deepen the problem of the readability of the authors' intention. In lines 115-116 Eqs. (1) and (2) are presented. The geometric values specified in these equations should be explained in a drawing.

'work roll bending roll force transverse stiffness' ?

At the very beginning, the workpiece material and its properties were not even characterised in detail.

The writing style of variables in equations and text should be unified. It's a disorder here. At one time, parameter notations are written in italics, at other times in regular font. Elsewhere, a subscript is no longer a subscript. This is a very carelessly written manuscript.

line 131: What does it mean that the positive bending is 50t?

The phrases used in the manuscript are really hard to follow:
a) 'FW is working roll bending force' (l. 117), 'FW is work roll bending roll force' (l/ 128) ?
b) 'CP is rolling force longitudinal stiffness' (l.  128), 'the mill stiffness CP' (l. 149) ?
c) etc.

The same parameters have different definitions in many places. One definition of each parameter during first use is sufficient.

Where is the verb in this sentence: 'According to the formula hact = 6.2.' ?

Where is the verb in this sentence: 'Curve 1 for the mill stiffness curve, the slope of the mill stiffness CP; curve 2 for the rolling piece plastic curve, the slope of the rolling piece plastic stiffness Q.'

line 160: "Type 1 and Type 8" appears for the first time. What do these Types refer to?

Can the authors explain 'The 6 times curve'?

Some values use non-SI units.

Experimental testing conditions were not presented. The authors' analytical deliberation has not been verified experimentally.

line 208: 'The transverse stiffness of the work roll bending force and rolling force were determined using a two-dimensional variable thickness finite element model.' A full description of the numerical model must be provided.  Methods should be described with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on published results.

The authors passionately use many simplifications and jargon, for example 'negative rolls', 'Negative bending rolls', 'negative bend rolls'. This makes the article readable only to the person who edited the text.

line 334: 'When the outlet thickness is thicker,...' The thickness cannot be thicker or thinner. The material thickness can be thicker or thinner.
A huge number of similar misleading phrases can be found in this work.

Figure 6 is blurred and requires graphic corrections and an increase in font size.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English correction is needed throughout the manuscript. The quality of technical terminology also needs to be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree to publish the manuscript after the current corrections.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

the English language is fine

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors introduced changes to the manuscript as suggested by the reviewer.
They responded to the questions, and their reply is acceptable.
I suggest that this article be accepted. in its current form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I found some minor problems with English, but these can be corrected at the stage of final proofreading before publication.