Multi-Performance Characteristics of AA5052 + 10% SiC Surface Composite by Friction Stir Processing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript by Kraiklang et al. discusses the optimal fabrication parameters for multiperformance characteristics of an aluminum surface composite. By performing SEM structural analysis and theoretical modeling the authors have reported the optimal conditions, based on the balance between mechanical properties and low rate of tool wear. The conclusions presented in this paper are worth considering and are supported by the results. I recommend publication of this paper subject to the following revision.
The average diameter of the SiC particles uses in this work is 18 micron. It would be interesting for the readers if the authors discuss the effect of particle size on the improvement of the mechanical properties and lowering the tool wear. In theoretical findings (see for example J. Phys. Chem. B 2010, 114, 1, 387; J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2019, 15, 2, 1345) manometer-sized particles are reported and discussed to improve the mechanical properties of the matrix considerably. However, micrometer-sized particles are reported to be better than nanometer-sized particles from the point of view of their ability to limit wear. This effect (limiting the wear) however is not pronounced. I think this point is worth discussing in the paper.
Author Response
Point 1: The average diameter of the SiC particles uses in this work is 18 micron. It would be interesting for the readers if the authors discuss the effect of particle size on the improvement of the mechanical properties and lowering the tool wear. In theoretical findings (see for example J. Phys. Chem. B 2010, 114, 1, 387; J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2019, 15, 2, 1345) manometer-sized particles are reported and discussed to improve the mechanical properties of the matrix considerably. However, micrometer-sized particles are reported to be better than nanometer-sized particles from the point of view of their ability to limit wear. This effect (limiting the wear) however is not pronounced. I think this point is worth discussing in the paper.
Response 1: A discussion of the effect of particle size on the improvement of the mechanical properties and tool wear has been added to the revise manuscript in discussion section (topic 3.2.2 between line 318 and 320).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This research presents the optimal conditions for the fabrication by FSP. Several processing conditions were discussed and the results are supported by SEM pictures. However before publishing, several improvements should be considered:
- in Table 3, the process parameters and levels are shown. However, for the N1R1T1 and N1R2T2, the results are not convincing enough, because two adjustable parameters existed.
- In Table 5. How many samples/measurement did the authors research? Because there are no even any error bars in this Table. ALso, The difference between different set ups in Table 5 are not clear enough--- a difference of 10% could simply disappear after several repeats.
- The data/results in the table are not a good way to present. The authors are suggested to use a diagram to analyse the influence of the different applied processing conditions.
- several kinds of literature is suggested for analysing the results, especially when there are two determining factors:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2017.07.004; Novel definition of the synergistic effect between carbon nanotubes and carbon black for electrical conductivity; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.105724;
Author Response
Point 1: In Table 3, the process parameters and levels are shown. However, for the N1R1T1 and N1R2T2, the results are not convincing enough, because two adjustable parameters existed.
Response 1: Both R and T parameters were set at two levels, which derived from the trials that the upper and the lower of the forming possibility of the surface composite were identified and then were assigned as levels of the independent parameters in the DOE using Taguchi method. If there are three factors with four, two and two levels, respectively, the orthogonal array can be L8 and L16 where a replication is one and two, respectively. The L8 with replication of two was used in this research and described in topic 2.2 between line 161 and 163.
Point 2: In Table 5. How many samples/measurement did the authors research? Because there are no even any error bars in this Table. Also, The difference between different set ups in Table 5 are not clear enough--- a difference of 10% could simply disappear after several repeats.
Response 2: The L8 with replication of two was used in this research and described in topic 2.2 between line 161 and 163. The average and standard deviation were added to Table 5 topic 3.1 between line 229 and 236.
Point 3: The data/results in the table are not a good way to present. The authors are suggested to use a diagram to analyse the influence of the different applied processing conditions.
Response 3: Figure 4 and 5 were added in order to illustrate the influences of the different applied processing conditions as reported previously in Table 5.
Point 4: Several kinds of literature is suggested for analysing the results, especially when there are two determining factors:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2017.07.004; Novel definition of the synergistic effect between carbon nanotubes and carbon black for electrical conductivity; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.105724;
Response 4: More literature reviews were added in introduction section between line 38 and 45.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
See the attachment for EIC.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: In terms of DoE sampling, lots of advanced techniques over Taguchi method should be considered for the following analysis –ANOVA or parametric optimization.
Response 1: There are several DOE methods such as full factorial and response surface that have more effectiveness over the Taguchi method. However, those method came with complexity and difficulty for practical as the number of the experiments will be increased owing to the number of the factors, while the Taguchi method requires a minimum number of the experiments, which results in term of time and budget reduction, provides robust design solutions. More reviews were added to introduction section to support the Taguchi method (between line 102 and 107) in this research. Moreover, more analyses on ANOVA and GRA were added to the revise manuscript between line 276 and 281.
Point 2: A multi-objective optimization should be performed to determine the best design, which, I believe, will be a more accurate solution than the one obtained by the current analysis.
Response 2: This is similar to Response 1. There are several methods for the multi-objective optimization that have high efficiency and accuracy such as Topsis, Fuzzy and GA, but complexity and difficulty for practical need to be taken into considerations. GRA method was chosen for this research as this method can provide a sufficient result from a small dataset derived from several factors. This method was widely applied for the research in area of industry and engineering owing to its advantages that there is no restriction in terms of sample size and type of distribution of the dataset. More reviews were added to introduction section to support the GRA method (between line 117 and 122) in this research.
Point 3: For multi-parametric optimization problems, authors should address which techniques or methods should be applied to efficiently and accurately solve the problem and how to avoid the local optimal solution or achieve the global solution. Unfortunately, none of those has been discussed in this paper.
Response 3: The suggestion on other multi-objective optimization methods, which have more advantages than the current method used in this research, was purposely identified for future works in conclusion section. Advantages and disadvantages of the current method also identified. These can be found in conclusion section between line 354 and 359.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author's answer to my comment is rather short, but anyhow, I am satisfied with the revision.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript now has been quite updated, which meets the requirement of the journal. I believe this manuscript will draw lots of attention of the readers and make a great scientific sound
Reviewer 3 Report
N/A
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
