Micromechanics-Based Low Cycle Fatigue Life Prediction Model of ECAPed Aluminum Alloy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article discusses the Micromechanics based low cycle fatigue life prediction model of ECAPed Aluminum alloy. The chosen alloy is significantly important for several industrial application. The reviewer made some comments on the PDF file of the submitted mauscript. The authors are encoraged to respond to all comments to improve the quality of the submitted paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We are highly thankful to you and honorable reviewers’ for sparing time and reviewing our article having manuscript ID: metals-1781014. The comments and changes suggested by the reviewers are of great value to us and we believe are highly helpful in revising and improving our unpolished paper, both technically as well scientifically. We have analyzed the comments very carefully and have made corrections in the revised manuscript accordingly, which we hope will meet with the requirements of the reviewers and journal simultaneously.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper aims to propose a new model of prediction fatigue life in LCF regime of ultrafine grained 6061 alloy. In my opinion, a lot of things should be explained and specified before the publication.
Major:
- What was the grain size of coarse grain AA6061? Why there is no EBSD result for this state of the material?
- Does the proposed model consider precipitates present in 6061 alloy? Microvoid coalescence is the main decohesion mechanism in the fatigue of this alloy. What was the size of the precipitates in UFG 6061? Focusing on grains only may be an oversimplification.
- I do not really understand on what base existing vs proposed method have been compared – would not be simpler to just present R2 of the established curves? Also, how many samples have been tested? Proposing a new model is quite a challenge and a sufficient number of data should be given. And finally, what is this conservatism vs unconservatism supposed to mean….?
Minor:
- Some abbreviations are not explained making the research difficult to understand. For example, where does “CG” is explained? It appears for the first time in line 67 and later on as “CG AA6061” with the given test results.
- Chemical composition should be given in a table (116-117 lines).
- The entire manuscript is sort of messy, only some examples: different font sizes in keywords, some symbols are italics (alpha in line 150), different fonts in equation 13, lack of spaces (line 122).
- Lack of uniformity in LCF parameters designations: n vs n′ - eq. 1 vs tab. 1), Et as strain amplitude? Please, do base on existing designations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is acceptable for publication. I have no comments nor suggestions about its scientific-technical content.
However, the manuscript needs polishing as regards English, as well as unification/correction of the of terminology. By way of example, it seems, the authors refer to the same thing with different names: "Euler’s velocity grade tensor" and "Euler’s velocity gradient tensor. " Besides, I'm not familiar with any "grade tensor".
Moreover, the manuscript formatting is faulty, especially as regards mathematical symbols and formulae. There are plenty of deficiencies: see the lines126, 150-151 (greek letter font), eq. (13) (summas, font sizes), 239, etc., etc., etc.
It would be nice to correct all such faults before the publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I recommend the publication.
Author Response
Thanks.
