Friction condition of aluminum alloy AA6061 lubricated with bio-lubricant in cold forging test

Purpose Cold forging operation is one of the widely used techniques in industry production. This paper aims to present a case study in highlighting and modelling the use of different type of palm oil-based [palm stearin (PS), palm kernel oil (PKO) and palm mid olein (PMO)] as a bio-lubricant in cold forging process using experimental and finite element method. Design/methodology/approach Ring compression test plays a fundamental role in the understanding of materials science and engineering because of the deformation, friction and wear behaviour. Aluminium (A6061) was used in this test to observe the deformation of the ring with different palm oil and its derivatives by comparing with commercial metal forming oil. Findings The presence of certain type of palm oil-based lubricant has a good performance compared to mineral-based oil in terms of surface roughness but when observed in terms of friction the result shows that palm oil-based lubricant has poor friction performance compared to mineral oil-based lubricant (m = 0.25), where PS has the lowest friction at m = 0.3 compared to PKO (m = 0.35) and PMO (m = 0.38). Research limitations/implications This research is using palm oil in cold forging test to study the friction, formation and stress at certain levels of stroke. The detail of the test is explained in the manuscript as attached. Social implications This research is trying to promote the use of biodegradable material to reduce pollution to the surrounding. Originality/value The originality of this paper has been checked using Turnitin and the result is 13%.

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind Each submitted paper reviewed by two minimum of reviewers after meet the minimum criteria. The review based on the following aspects: 1) Technical Criteria (Scientific merit, Clarity of expression, and Sufficient discussion of the context of the work, and suitable referencing); 2) Quality Criteria (Originality, Motivation, Repetition, Length); and 3) presentation criteria (Title, Abstract, Diagram, figures, tables and captions, Text and mathematics, and Conclusion). We also used iThenticate for plagiarism detection. • Conference submission management system: Easychair • Number of submissions received: 125 • Number of submissions sent for review: 117 • Number of submissions accepted: 90 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 90/125 = 72% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 Reviewers • Total number of reviewers involved: 36 • Any additional info on review process: No • Contact person for queries: Name : Dr. Anita Ahmad Kasim Affiliation: Universitas Tadulako, Indonesia Email : [email protected]

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind • Conference submission management system: All the manuscripts received form the authors were sent to the reviewers. Each manuscript was reviewed by one reviewer and re-checked by editor. All comments were sent back to the authors to let them make all corrections. The revised versions of manuscripts were checked and approved by editors. • Number of submissions received: 15 • Number of submissions sent for review: 15 • Number of submissions accepted:11 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100):73.3 • Average number of reviews per paper: 1 • Total number of reviewers involved:10 • Any additional info on review process: Reviewers considered manuscripts in accordance with: 1) Technical Criteria: scientific rigour, accuracy, correctness of selected methodology. 2) Quality Criteria: originality and novelty, clarity of motivation and results importance. 3) Presentation Criteria: clarity of expression, readability and completeness of presentation, quality of all presented data and figures. • Contact person for queries: Name: Sergey Dubinskiy Email: [email protected]

Writing-to-learn in introductory materials science and engineering

We examine the impact of writing-to-learn (WTL) on promoting conceptual understanding of introductory materials science and engineering, including crystal structures, stress–strain behavior, phase diagrams, and corrosion. We use an analysis of writing products in comparison with pre/post concept-inventory-style assessments. For all topics, statistically significant improvements between draft and revision scores are apparent. For the stress–strain and phase diagram WTL assignments that require synthesis of qualitative data into quantitative formats, while emphasizing microstructure-properties correlations, the highest WTL effect sizes and medium-to-high gains on corresponding assessments are observed. We present these findings and suggest strategies for future WTL design and implementation. Graphic abstract

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind The single-blind peer-review method was used for the peer-review process. • Conference submission management system: The papers are emailed to the Secretariat and managed internally. • Number of submissions received: 21 • Number of submissions sent for review: 21 • Number of submissions accepted: 17 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received × 100): 81% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 26 • Any additional info on review process: List of Secretariat stage, Scientific Committee stage, Adjudicator are available in this pdf.

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind • Conference submission management system: Microsoft CMT - https://cmt3.research.microsoft.com/ • Number of submissions received: 28 • Number of submissions sent for review: 28 • Number of submissions accepted: 17 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 60.71% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 31 • Any additional info on review process: All manuscripts submitted to the CIEES’2021 conference were single-blind peer-reviewed and are carried out to meet the scientific criteria of novelty and academic excellence. The review process was conducted according to the review policy of IOP conference series - each paper was reviewed by at least two reviewers involving both national and international reviewers. During the discussion phase, International Scientific Committee members and the Programme Committee members discussed the reviews in detail. The rebuttals from the authors were also seriously considered. The final decision to accept a paper was entirely based on quality and not its length. • Contact person for queries: Assoc. Prof. Teodor Iliev, PhD, Department of Telecommunications, University of Ruse, Bulgaria, E-mail: [email protected]

Peer review declaration

• All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. Type of peer review: The review process was of an open peer review type. Each article was reviewed by two reviewers. First review was provided by the author, who addressed the reviewer himself and made the revisions in the article before submitting both article and the review form. The first reviewer was asked to be someone close to their research, who could provide helpful advice. Second review was provided mostly by employees of Technical University of Košice. The reviewers reviewed articles close to their research area. They were provided with full articles including the authors names and the authors then received the review form which included the reviewer’s name. The authors had then an opportunity to revise the papers and the papers were accepted only after the authors made the changes asked for by the second reviewer in their articles. In the review form the reviewers were asked to judge the quality of the paper, choosing from options: excellent, good, average, or poor; provide some comments to support their argument and give the authors some notes to help them improve the quality of their paper. For the conclusion of the review form the reviewers had to choose the status of acceptance of the paper, choosing from following options: accepted without revisions, accepted with minor revisions, accepted with major revisions, or rejected. If the paper was accepted without revisions, the authors were then not required to provide any revisions. If the second reviewer decided to choose the reject option, the authors did not have an option to revise their paper and the paper was rejected even if the first reviewer accepted the paper. • Conference submission management system: CaptainForm • Number of submissions received: 88 • Number of submissions sent for review: 88 • Number of submissions accepted: 87 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 98.86 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 99 • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: Kamila Kotrasová, [email protected]