Amazing epsilon-shaped trend for fretting fatigue characteristics in AM60 magnesium alloy under stress-controlled cyclic conditions at bending loads with zero mean stress

Saeid Rezanezhad; Mohammad Azadi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0281263

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 20, 2022
2 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil, Editor PONE-D-22-31978Amazing Epsilon-shaped trend for fretting fatigue characteristics in AM60 magnesium alloy under stress-controlled cyclic conditions at bending loads with zero mean stressPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Azadi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.Please revise your manuscript according to the reviewers comments. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 16 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "No" At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Please take care of the reviewer comments especially the typo in the manuscript. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 1. The second paragraph in the Introduction section is too lengthy. 2. In the first paragraph of Section 3.2, the authors mentioned the averaged values in Figure 5(b) and the values were derived. The authors are invited to explain more about this statement as it is unclear. 3. The manuscript contains some typos. Reviewer #2: Review comments:- 1. What type of rotary fatigue testing device can be used in these experiments? 2. Mention the importance of field-emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM)? 3. how the fatigue lifetime compared with the stress values of pure fatigue (PF) and fretting fatigue? 4. Casting defect identified using which instrument? Mention the specifications of the testing device. 5. If the stress level will be more means, Did the crack propagations will become more or less? 6. In table 3, whether the length has been increased due to the increase of stress level? Or the Mg contribution of materials composition? 7. Why were the different color SEM images displayed in figure 11? Any specific reason beyond this? ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281263.r001
Revision 1
9 Jan 2023 Author Response Dear Academic Editor, Our article, entitled “Amazing Epsilon-shaped trend for fretting fatigue characteristics in AM60 magnesium alloy under stress-controlled cyclic conditions at bending loads with zero mean stress”, is reviewed by respected reviewers. First of all, the authors should thank you for this review. Then, the authors have tried their bests to address all comments. The changes were highlighted in yellow-colored sentences. Moreover, the answers to each comment are provided in the following paragraphs. Regards, M. Azadi, PhD. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran Additional Editor Comments: Please take care of the reviewer comments especially the typo in the manuscript. Answer: Thank you for the chance for revising the article. The authors have tried their bests to address all comments in the revised article. Moreover, the whole manuscript is read again to find any mistakes. In addition, the whole text is checked by the Grammarly software with the overall score of 87. Reviewer #1: 1. The second paragraph in the Introduction section is too lengthy. Answer: The authors should thank the respected reviewer for his/her nice comments. Then, all comments were completely addressed in the revised article. For this comment, the second paragraph in the introduction is separated into four paragraphs to prevent the lengthy issue. Moreover, some sentences were eliminated to shorten this part. 2. In the first paragraph of Section 3.2, the authors mentioned the averaged values in Figure 5(b) and the values were derived. The authors are invited to explain more about this statement as it is unclear. Answer: Thank you for the nice suggestion. The authors have added the following text for a better explanation in the revised article, as follows, It is worth noting that at least, three tests were done at each stress level. The fatigue lifetimes of these experiments were averaged to find the mean value. Therefore, in one case (Figure 5(a)), all experimental data are presented and, in another case, only average lifetimes are reported to find a specific trend of the amazing Epsilon-shaped behavior. 3. The manuscript contains some typos. Answer: Sorry for this mistake. The whole manuscript is read again to find any mistakes. Moreover, the whole text is checked through the Grammarly software and the overall score of 87 is obtained. Reviewer #2: 1. What type of rotary fatigue testing device can be used in these experiments? Answer: The authors should thank the respected reviewer for his/her nice comments. Then, all comments were completely addressed in the revised article. For this comment, the cantilever beam type was used with two-point bending conditions. This issue is highlighted in the text, as follows, The pure fatigue testing was carried out by means of the SFT-600 device, manufactured by Santam Company. With Rσ = -1 (zero mean stress), a two-point bending (cantilever beam) rotary fatigue test apparatus was employed under fully-reversed loading conditions. 2. Mention the importance of field-emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM)? Answer: The objective was to find the damage mechanisms. This issue is added to the revised article, as follows, For such an investigation, the FESEM image (Mira3 TESCAN, SEM HV: 15.0 kV) was utilized for the fractography. The objective was to find the damage mechanism from the fracture surface of samples. Moreover, the XRD analysis was also used to determine the phase in the microstructure. 3. how the fatigue lifetime compared with the stress values of pure fatigue (PF) and fretting fatigue? Answer: The respected reviewer is correct. However, to find the real stress value, the finite element simulation needs to be done. Moreover, this type of presentation is common in the literature, such as Chen et al. [12], Peng et al. [33], and Parast and Azadi [34]. In order to address this nice comment, the real stress in each fretting fatigue samples could be a combination of the bending stress and the contact stress. The bending stress is similar in both pure fatigue and fretting fatigue. Therefore, on the S-N curves, the title of the vertical axis is changed from “stress” to “bending stress”, in Figure 5, besides mentioning in the figure title. Moreover, the following description is also added to the revised article, as follows, As another note, to compare pure fatigue and fretting fatigue behaviors, the bending stress was drawn versus the fatigue lifetime. Under fretting fatigue conditions, the real stress of samples is a combination of the bending stress and the contact stress. This value could be calculated by finite element simulations. However, the bending stress is similar in both pure fatigue and fretting fatigue, which is used for the comparison of pure fatigue and fretting fatigue data. 4. Casting defect identified using which instrument? Mention the specifications of the testing device. Answer: The porosity and the casting defects were found by the FESEM images, based on their known shapes. This issue is mentioned in the revised article, as follows, In Figures 7-10, in some cases, the porosity due to casting defects could be also seen in FESEM images, based on their known shape. They often take the shape of a circle in cross-section but can get the form of an irregular linear crack. This is a mechanism where a volumetric contraction of a metal solidifies and the jagged edges form, when there is not enough liquid to fill the shrinkage. These defects were due to solidification shrinkage during casting that will decrease the fatigue lifetime and could be the region for the crack initiation. Moreover, the used FESEM model was Mira3 TESCAN, which is also mentioned in the revised article, as follows, For such an investigation, the FESEM image (Mira3 TESCAN, SEM HV: 15.0 kV) was utilized for the fractography. The objective was to find the damage mechanism from the fracture surface of samples. Moreover, the XRD analysis was also used to determine the phase in the microstructure. 5. If the stress level will be more means, Did the crack propagations will become more or less? Answer: As known, when the stress level is high, the cycles to initiate the crack are short and the cycles for crack propagation are long. In other words, cracks will occur very soon and then, the whole lifetime includes a large portion of crack propagation. This issue will be reversed when the stress is low, through the high-cycle fatigue regimes. These descriptions were also mentioned in the book of “Metal Fatigue in Engineering” generally for metals and also by Rezanezhad et al. [27] (based on the following image) for aluminum alloys. An image from the reference: Rezanezhad et al. [27] In order to address this comment, the following text is added to the revised article, as follows, As a confirmation, this issue was also reported by Rezanezhad et al. [27] for aluminum alloys. Higher densities of cracks were observed under the highest stress level or the low-cycle fatigue regime, compared to the lowest stress level or the high-cycle fatigue regime. 6. In table 3, whether the length has been increased due to the increase of stress level? Or the Mg contribution of materials composition? Answer: As mentioned in the previous comment, when the stress increased, the crack length increased too. However, the material composition was similar in all samples. If the respected reviewer means from the EDS analysis, since these images have different magnification (500X) from FESEM images for Table 3 (2000X), they could not be used for this conclusion. Moreover, the failure mechanism is from intermetallic and not from the soft Mg matrix. The “X” area in Figure 11 is considered for the location the crack, inside the intermetallic phases. As a confirmation of the presented results with the literature [13,46], the “X” area, which showed the crack path in Figure 11, contained the Al or Mn elements as intermetallic phases. Most cracks were from Mg-Al intermetallic phases and one case was due to Mn. Notably, the Mg matrix alone was not the origin of cracks, based on its own effects, since it is softer than intermetallic phases. 7. Why were the different color SEM images displayed in figure 11? Any specific reason beyond this? Answer: No, each element has its own color. For elements, Mg is in orange, Al is in purple, and Mn is in blue. There are no any other reasons for this type of presentation. The application of these colors is to used all elements in one image that is not presented here. Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Answer: Thank you for the comments. Both procedures are considered for the revision. 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "No" At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Answer: The last one is mentioned in the revised article. 3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Answer: All references are again check to have complete details. All corrected ones were highlighted in yellow colors. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 0.Answers to comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281263.r002
19 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil, Editor Amazing Epsilon-shaped trend for fretting fatigue characteristics in AM60 magnesium alloy under stress-controlled cyclic conditions at bending loads with zero mean stress PONE-D-22-31978R1 Dear Dr. Azadi, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: No further revision is required, as the reviewer's comments have been appropriately addressed. Therefore, the manuscript is eligible for publication. Reviewer #2: Everything has done perfectly. Formatting and figure quality should be improved. Table captions should be improved in the comprehensive manner. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281263.r003
Formally Accepted
30 Jan 2023 Acceptance Letter - Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil, Editor PONE-D-22-31978R1 Amazing Epsilon-shaped trend for fretting fatigue characteristics in AM60 magnesium alloy under stress-controlled cyclic conditions at bending loads with zero mean stress Dear Dr. Azadi: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281263.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .