Behavior and Analysis of Stainless Steel Wires Under Straight Bending

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer comments

This paper investigates Behavior and Analysis of Stainless Steel Wires under Straight

Bending. The comments are shown as below:

 

1. Page 13: Suggest the author to write the meshing condition for the simulation? Does the author use the mesh control at some regions in this simulation model.
2. The font size of simulation result in Figure 26, 27 and 28 is small and suggest to increase the font size and enlarge the Figure results.
3. Page 16: The Figure 23 for force applied condition is small and is hard to see the position for applied force. Also, why the author select the force value of 400 N? The force multiply distance can obtain bending moment and can apply in the formula (1). Suggest the author to write the value of bending moment and bending stress.
4. For simulation results, the author use the strain or deformation for optimizing the bending process of metal wires. Could the author explain why does not also include the von-Mises stress criterion or stress to evaluate this process?
5. Page 20: There are many important points in this section (5.3. Verification of tests). Suggest the author to (1) write more contents in 5.3. (2) Figure 31 can use (a) 10x and (b) 20x. (3) plot figure or use table to compare simulation and experiment results.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Page 13: Suggest the author to write the meshing condition for the simulation? Does the author use the mesh control at some regions in this simulation model.

Response 1: Thank you for your insightful question. On page 13 the following has been specified: To establish the FEA model and conduct the simulation, a bilinear elastoplastic model was employed using a free mesh approach. The nonlinear material behavior was customized to reflect the mechanical properties of SUS304 steel.

Comment 2: The font size of simulation result in Figure 26, 27 and 28 is small and suggest to increase the font size and enlarge the Figure results.

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to improve the readability of Figures 26–28. In the revised manuscript, we have increased the font size.

Comment 3: Page 16: The Figure 23 for force applied condition is small and is hard to see the position for applied force. Also, why the author select the force value of 400 N? The force multiply distance can obtain bending moment and can apply in the formula (1). Suggest the author to write the value of bending moment and bending stress.

Response 3: Thanks for the observation. The suggestion has been applied between pages 16 and 17, obtaining values according to the analysis.

Comment 4: For simulation results, the author use the strain or deformation for optimizing the bending process of metal wires. Could the author explain why does not also include the von-Mises stress criterion or stress to evaluate this process?

Response 4: Thank you for your insightful question. In this study, we focused on strain/deformation as the primary optimization criterion because the bending process of metal wires is predominantly limited by formability (i.e., avoiding excessive stretching or fracture) rather than stress-related failure. Strain directly correlates with geometric accuracy and material elongation, which are critical for achieving the desired wire shape without defects. While von Mises stress is indeed a valuable criterion for assessing yield or plastic deformation, our preliminary simulations showed that stress distributions remained below the material's tensile limit under the applied bending conditions. Thus, strain served as a more sensitive indicator for process optimization in this context. However, we acknowledge that including stress analysis could provide additional insights, and we include the von Mises stress in Figure 29 in the results section.

Comment 5: Page 20: There are many important points in this section (5.3. Verification of tests). Suggest the author to (1) write more contents in 5.3. (2) Figure 31 can use (a) 10x and (b) 20x. (3) plot figure or use table to compare simulation and experiment results.

Response 5:  Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised Section 5.3 (Verification of Tests) to address your suggestions:  (A) Expanded Content: Additional details have been incorporated to enhance the discussion. (B) Improved Figure 31 (in new version is Figure 32): The figure now includes (a) 10x and (b) 20x magnification for better clarity, and ( C) Comparison of Results: A new table has been added to compare simulation and experimental results systematically.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study's objective was to develop effective tools and methodologies for optimising the bending process of metal wires. The focus was on assessing the performance of SUS304 stainless steel in the manufacturing of torsion springs.

1.- But the authors present the mechanical properties of SS400 steel, but do not specify its intended use. It is understood that all development has been carried out using SUS304 steel.

2.- Figure 1. Proposed Approach Diagram. The figure illustrates steps 3 to 6, but does not specify what steps 1 and 2 are.

3.- The model used is mathematically precise and has been exhaustively documented.

4.- Table 2. Tabulation of reference values for Rn, Ro, and ϵ. Why are the results in the table presented with two decimal places, while other values are presented with four?

5.- Figure 12. Graph of the tabulated values of Ro and ϵ. Bad quality picture

6.- Validation through Finite Element Analysis. The authors talk about the results validation. It would be more accurate to refer to MEF calculation. These MEF results will be validated through experimentation, not the other way around.

7.- Validation through Finite Element Analysis. The authors do not specify the characteristics of the mesh used for the calculation, nor do they indicate whether a nonlinear material simulation model was employed.

Author Response

Comment1 - But the authors present the mechanical properties of SS400 steel, but do not specify its intended use. It is understood that all development has been carried out using SUS304 steel.

Response1: Thanks for the observation. In the paper, in the subtitle 3.3, SUS304 steel has been highlighted as the material for analysis. Table 1 and Figure 11, includes both steels because reference [34] carry out a comparison and research on mechanical behaviors for bolted connections in carbon steel SS400 and in stainless steel SUS304 using FEM.

Comment 2.- Figure 1. Proposed Approach Diagram. The figure illustrates steps 3 to 6, but does not specify what steps 1 and 2 are.

Response2 : Thanks for the observation. The flow diagram in Figure 1 has been renumbered.

Comment 3.- The model used is mathematically precise and has been exhaustively documented.

Response3 :  We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's positive assessment of our model's mathematical rigor and comprehensive documentation. Ensuring clarity and reproducibility were key priorities in our work, and we appreciate this acknowledgment.

Comment 4.- Table 2. Tabulation of reference values for Rn, Ro, and ϵ. Why are the results in the table presented with two decimal places, while other values are presented with four? 

Response 4: Thanks for the observation. This omission error has been corrected.

Comment 5.- Figure 12. Graph of the tabulated values of Ro and ϵ. Bad quality picture

Response 5: Thanks for the observation. The quality of Figure 12 was improved.

Comment 6.- Validation through Finite Element Analysis. The authors talk about the results validation. It would be more accurate to refer to MEF calculation. These MEF results will be validated through experimentation, not the other way around.  

Response 6: Thank you for your insightful question. A comparative table was added at the end of the experimental results.

Comment 7.- Validation through Finite Element Analysis. The authors do not specify the characteristics of the mesh used for the calculation, nor do they indicate whether a nonlinear material simulation model was employed. 

Response 7 : Thank you for your insightful question. On page 13 the following has been specified: To establish the FEA model and conduct the simulation, a bilinear elastoplastic model was employed using a free mesh approach. The nonlinear material behavior was customized to reflect the mechanical properties of SUS304 steel.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper can be accepted with last modifications