A New Wear Calculation Method for Galvanized Ultra-High-Strength Steel during Hot Stamping

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Before being accepted, the authors should make clear the below quotations: 
1. Include the reference published within five years.
2. The study validates its wear calculation model at different temperatures (650°C, 700°C, and 750°C), showing good consistency with actual values within a low-pressure range. However, it does not provide detailed information on how these validations were conducted, which might raise questions about the robustness of the model's predictions.
3. The author states that the wear of the sheet metal primarily depends on the contact area during the contact process. Yet, it also mentions that the localized wear becomes complex due to significant temperature and hardness differences between the sheet metal and the die and the presence of a galvanized layer. This complexity might contradict the simplicity implied by focusing mainly on the actual contact area.
4. Could authors provide more details on the steps and assumptions involved in calculations?
5. How did authors validate the accuracy of your wear calculation model at different temperatures (650°C, 700°C, and 750°C)?
6. Can authors elaborate on how the significant temperature and hardness differences between the high-temperature sheet metal and the water-cooled die affect the wear process?
7. The Authors state that the wear of the sheet metal primarily depends on the contact area during the contact process. However, it also mentions that the localized wear becomes complex due to significant temperature and hardness differences between the sheet metal and the die and the presence of a galvanized layer. How do authors explain the contradictions? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See appended reviewer report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See appended reviewer report.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

comment in the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Following revisions by the author, the manuscript is now acceptable in its current form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

A great improvement from the original manuscript has been achieved. But there are some smaller suggestions to further strengthen the manuscript as given below.

* In the abstract/introduction/conclusion, you use the word(s): mold and molds, which is more common to use for production of castings. Instead use tools or tool parts.

* page 8, line 5: no blank to the units.

* In general you do not use a blank before your references (XXXXX [1-3]), insert that.

* In the Results and discussion section (page 8, line 5), you don't write the units for Ar (mum^2).

* page 9, line 2: "..., as delineated in Figure 7". Change delineated to "shown".

* page 9, Figure 7: it can be seen in the figure that the calculated wear volume is higher for all temperatures and loads, why didn't you reduce the wear coefficient (k) until you minimize the deviation between the model prediction and the actual measured test results? Include some comments about this in your manuscript.

* page 9, line 10: "... onerous stress conditions." to "... severe stress conditions."

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Seems quite ok now, just some "strange" words that are used. See comments above.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf