The Influence of Galvanizing on the Surface Quality and Part Precision of S235J0 Alloy Machined by Turning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript Number: Coatings-2248673

 

Title: The influence of galvanizing on the surface quality and part precision of S235J0 alloy machined by turning

 

Decision: Minor revision

Article Type: Article

The article is, in general, well written but there are some issues that article should consider to revise in order to improve its quality. Some comments were done in this way:

 

Ø  The abstract, according to the reviewer, is not a mini-paper but a quick tool to help readers decide whether they will read the rest of the paper. Please give numerical (percentage) improvements to the summary section that will attract the attention of the readers.

Ø  In Fig.3, there is significant deformation at the bottom of all samples. Both the channel and the surface are excessively distorted. Why? Wasn't a tailstock used while turning?

Ø  After the Anova analysis, the % contribution rates should be calculated and given.

Ø  It was stated that 3 repetitions were made. Please indicate error bars in the results of the Ra (Fig. 16 and 20).

Ø  If you have the opportunity to take surface topography in addition to Fig 20 and Table 15, I think the article will attract more attention. Because. The valleys and hills (Rp, Rt) formed on the upper surface by the material plastered between the gaps on the surface will provide more data than Ra.

Ø  The literature is new but incomplete. Additions should be made from articles published in Coatings journal.

Ø  Reference 5 data missing should be corrected.

 

 

After making the above corrections would recommend this article for publication in Coatings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is interesting and investigates how galvanizing a machined S235J0 steel part affects surface quality regarding roughness. 

In general terms, the paper is well structured, but I suggest a revision of the English, as there are sections where it is neglected, such as the introduction (with an abuse of the passive) and the conclusions, which should be better written. 

The bibliographic review is well done, although it would lack some other article related to the coating of steels (in this case polymeric), recommending the following:

 

* Nunes, M.S., Bandeira, R.M., Figueiredo, F.C., dos Santos Junior, J.R., de Matos, J.M.E. Corrosion protection of stainless steel by a new and low-cost organic coating obtained from cashew nutshell liquid (2023) 140 (5), art. no. e53420, 

* Selles, M.A., Schmid, S.R., Sanchez-Caballero, S., Perez-Bernabeu, E., Reig, M.J. Upper-bound modelization of an ironed three-layered polymer-coated steel strip (2012) 60 (1-4), pp. 161-171. 

* Selles, M.A., Schmid, S.R., Seguí, V.J. Ironability of a three-layered polymer-coated steel. Part 1: Experimental investigation (2008) 202 (1-3), pp. 7-14. 

Regarding the performance of the experiments, the authors have to specify that the roughness measurements have been made longitudinally, and they have to explain why they have not made measurements in the transverse direction.

The image in Table 3 is unclear to me, since it is not clear how the cylinder is held so that it does not roll, and Figure 8 does not show it clearly, since it is seen vertically in this figure.

In figure 17 there is a table. Separate.

Has the thickness of the different layers of zinc been measured?

There are images in Table 15 that are blurred. Fix.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Suggestions for improving the manuscript are as follows:

1. The terminology in the manuscript should be unified (for example (part/specimen/workpiece)

2. Before you write objective, novelty and originality, you should write the general shortcomings of previous research. The state-of-the-art comparisons for the proposed work are missing in this paper. Then do a critical analysis of previous research. Critically and scientifically analyse previous research.  Critically highlight the previous researches gap. Point out all the controversies of previous research.

3. The Research methodology section lists materials, methods, etc. However, the reasons and methods of selection are not mentioned anywhere. For each choice, give a reason why you chose it.

4. Provide detailed information about the cutting tool (geometry, angles, etc.). Additionally, give reasons for all choices. Why exactly such a tool would be representative of your research.

5. Based on what and how you selected the cutting parameters. Why are these processing parameters relevant to your research?

6. In my opinion, the number of experiments should be higher. There are too few experiments. Additionally, bad technical terminology runs throughout the manuscript. Is the unit rpm for speed? The unit for cutting speed is m/s2.

7. It is common knowledge that the cutting speed greatly affects the wear of the cutting tool. The wear of the cutting tool directly affects the accuracy and quality of the machined surface. Experiments were performed with only one cutting speed. Why, when it directly affects your results.

8. Table 3 should be corrected. The general technical specifications of the device should not be displayed, but only those that you have selected. In addition, the reasons for the selection of each parameter should be explained. Also, which filter are you using and why?

9. For all measured results, the measurement uncertainty should be estimated. This is very important from a measurement point of view.

10. What is Ra before the experiments? State for each experiment that the percentage improvement/deterioration could be seen.

11. Is it processing or turning? The problem of terminology throughout the entire manuscript is obvious. The manuscript must be proofread.

12. The results must be further discussed. Currently, the discussion is limited to numerical data and statistical data only. The obtained results must be discussed from the point of view of the physics of the process. It is crucial for scientific research.

13. The Conclusions section should be completely rewritten. Be specific in your writing. In this section (Conclusions section), highlight: the main results, the universality of your methodology, the innovation of your methodology, the scientific contribution of your research, the limitations of your methodology (every research has advantages and disadvantages) and future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been significantly improved and corrected. I suggest accepting the manuscript in its current form.