Finite Element Modeling and Experimental Validation of AA 5052-H34 Machining: A Comprehensive Study on Chip Morphology and Temperature Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study, Johnson Cook model parameters were determined for the 5052-H34 alloy using Split-Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) tests and were verified by finite element analysis. The article contributes to the literature in general. Acceptable for publication.

SHPB should be given in length in the title. Title may be updated.

The introduction part is sufficient.

The test results are also quite sufficient. Turning tests and cutting analyzes are compatible.

It may be updated with newer sources for references. References from similar studies conducted in recent years should be added.

When the article is examined in general, it includes the Johnson-Cook damage model parameters for the 5082-h34 alloy and the usability of these parameters for machining has been demonstrated. It contributes to the literature.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

First of all, we like to express our sincere gratitude, allowing the review of our manuscript. All editorial comments were responded and the related changes were made in the main manuscript, with modifications highlighted in yellow.  

We look forward to hearing your constructive comments.   

Sincerely yours,

Seyed Ali Niknam Ph.D

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Investigations of the dynamic behavior of metals play an important role in machining efficiency. There are numerous investigations of the dynamic behavior of aluminum alloys with the aim of better understanding the deformation of materials at high strain rates. However, many aspects of the behavior of aluminum alloys at high strain rates remain unclear. In particular, in metal cutting, chip formation involves significant plastic deformation at high temperatures and strain rates, where the stress and temperature fields strongly interact.

The peer-review paper presents a combined approach of experimental and numerical methods to enhance understanding of the mechanism involved in machining AA 5052-H34. The Johnson-Cook (J-C) constitutive equation, paired with a J-C damage criterion was employed in a chip formation and cutting temperature simulation. It was found that the feed rate significantly influences the dynamic behavior of AA 5052-H34. The proposed FE model, validated using data from turning tests, predicts this behavior. The outcomes and proposed strategies may be valuable for accurately predicting material behavior at high strain rates in machining operations.

As a result of the investigation, the authors established and formulated a number of regularities.

·         The dynamic behavior of AA 5052-H34 at high strain rates may be modeled with appropriate accuracy using the tensile and SHPB tests and based on the J-C constitutive equation.

·         A two-dimensional orthogonal simulation of machining based on the material model was proposed, which well predicts the results and machining behavior of AA 5052-H34 with appropriate accuracy.

·         Based on the results of experimental tests and simulations about the chip thickness, the feed rate is the most important factor affecting this output.

·         At a constant feed rate, with an increase in the cutting speed and the shear angle, the length of the shear plane line decreases, which means less cutting force.

·         The experimental and simulation results confirmed that the machining temperature increases with increased cutting speed and feed rate.

This study would serve as a useful guide for the design and development of advanced alloy materials.

The article contains a number of interesting results that may be useful to a potential reader. The quality of the presentation of the material of the article, from the point of view of the reviewer, is good. The article may be published after minor editing.

There are several questions, comments and suggestions for the authors.

1.       Authors should expand the description of figure captions, indicating all parameters used.

2.       The authors are recommended to analyze the behavior of the various curves in Fig. 4, draw a conclusion about the effect of strain rate on the magnitude of stresses.

3.       The authors are recommended to rework Fig. 10. For a more meaningful analysis of the results obtained, the reviewer advises to provide the Von Mises stress, strain rate and plastic strain distributions for various values of feed rate (feed=0.05mm/rev, feed=0.175mm/rev,  feed=0.3mm/rev).

4.       The authors are recommended to expand the description of Fig. 11. In particular, note that an increase of the feed rate leads to an increase in chip thickness, and an increase of the cutting speed V has little effect on chip thickness.

5.       Figure 13 illustrates the simulation temperature for cutting conditions of feed rate=0.05 mm/rev and a cutting speed=200 m/min. Are similar data available for other experiments? For a potential reader, this data would be of considerable interest.

6.       In the caption to Fig. 13 there is a typo.

7.       In Fig. 14, the data from experiment 7 fall outside the general pattern. The authors explain this by taking into account wear in this case. It would be more correct to provide data for all 9 cases considered, either with wear or without taking it into account. Of greater interest is the presentation of data on the effect of wear on temperature for all cases considered.

8.       Authors need to remove double numbering in the References.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

First of all, we like to express our sincere gratitude, allowing the review of our manuscript. All editorial comments were responded and the related changes were made in the main manuscript, with modifications highlighted in yellow.  

We look forward to hearing your constructive comments.   

Sincerely yours,

Seyed Ali Niknam Ph.D

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please refer to the attached review report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Please refer to the attached review report.

Author Response

Dear Editor

As per your request, the third review was canceled. 

Regards

SA Niknam

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In my article review after the revision, it was understood that the article was improved. The article may be accepted for publication.

In my article review after the revision, it was understood that the article was improved. The article may be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

First of all, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for the review of our manuscript. We also want to appreciate your recommendation for publication.

Sincerely yours,

Seyed Ali Niknam Ph.D

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Applied Mechanics.

Manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Applied Mechanics.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

First of all, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for the review of our manuscript. We also want to appreciate your recommendation for publication.

Sincerely yours,

Seyed Ali Niknam Ph.D

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The 10th item specified in the previous Review Report has not been implemented. The researchers' presented study addresses the concordance between chip thickness in simulation and experimental data. A brief evaluation comparing simulation outcomes with experimental findings should be added to the recommended study. By juxtaposing experimental results with simulation outcomes, you can ascertain the degree to which the simulation accurately represents real-world conditions.  'Comparative analysis in drilling performance of AA7075 in different temper conditions. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance 32.17 (2023): 7721-7736'

The 10th item from the previous Review Report, which involves comparing chip thickness in simulation and experimental data, has not been addressed. It's crucial to include a brief evaluation that compares simulation outcomes with experimental findings. 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

First of all, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for the review of our manuscript. All editorial comments were responded to, and the related changes were made in the main manuscript, with modifications highlighted in purple. Additional grammatical and linguistic corrections were also made to the manuscript. 

We look forward to hearing your constructive comments.   

Sincerely yours,

Seyed Ali Niknam Ph.D

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf