Microstructure, Mechanical Properties and Strengthening Mechanism Analysis in an AlMg5 Aluminium Alloy Processed by ECAP and Subsequent Ageing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

In my opinion, your work titled: “Microstructure, Mechanical Properties and Strengthening Mechanism Analysis in an AlMg5 Aluminium Alloy Processed by ECAP and Subsequent Ageing” is very interesting and the content is well structured and the results are clearly presented and commented. However, some aspect about the figures and the tables should be reviewed in order to improve the quality of your work.

 

In figure 2, please ensure that the “Zeiss” name has to be eliminated.

In general, It may be recommended use the same format in the magnitude of the images to compare easily.

The author has to show in a clear way the magnitude bar of the images in figure 3. It is difficult to observe such dimension.

Please, repeat the figure 6 and figure 7. The red color and the axis names have to be improved. I recommended the blue color for the graphic representation of the results.

Figure 8, its writing style is not Palatino Linotype style. It should be in the same format.

Indicate in Table 3, what is “A,%”.

The figure 10 is very interesting, I recommend to the author that they should show this figure in a bigger size than they present in the manuscript.

The author should review the table 4. Are values missing?

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Dear Reviewer,

We are very satisfied with this detailed review of our work, in most cases, the reviewer with special care and attention review the content of this article giving us precise remarks and valuable suggestions what has to be improved. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be evaluated again and at the same time, we are convinced that the performed corrections based on the reviewer comments contributed to the improvement of the quality of the presented article and had enabled the authors to look from a different point of view at our work. Please find below, the response to reviewer remarks. New text were marked as red in manuscript in order to facilitate the tracking of changes.

Sincerely thanks for reviewing our article.

If there are any problems in the article and further revisions are needed, please inform me at your earliest convenience.

Your kindness will be greatly appreciated. I appreciate this opportunity. Many thanks.

Sincerely, the Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

·         The materials were supplied by who?

·         Line 67 – According which standard?

·         Line 79 – What was the equipment used?

·         Figure 9 – Average curves, or the curve corresponding to one specimen?

·         Table 3- 4 - The values presented are average values? The standard deviation? How many tests were performed in each evaluation?

·         Line 108 – Replace “poalrized” by “polarized”.

·         Line 111 – “It is apparent…” Why? How can the authors concluded this?

·         The increase/decrease observed in the properties evaluated after artificial ageing should be also presented in percentage. It was expected the behavior observed in this study? Why?

·         Figure 9 – The authors should explained these curves. The linear part it is not the same for all curves. Why?

·         The results obtained should be discussed with others presented in the open literature to can support the conclusions.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very satisfied with this detailed review of our work, in most cases, the reviewer with special care and attention review the content of this article giving us precise remarks and valuable suggestions what has to be improved. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be evaluated again and at the same time, we are convinced that the performed corrections based on the reviewer comments contributed to the improvement of the quality of the presented article and had enabled the authors to look from a different point of view at our work. Please find below, the response to reviewer remarks. New text were marked as red in manuscript in order to facilitate the tracking of changes.

Sincerely thanks for reviewing our article.

If there are any problems in the article and further revisions are needed, please inform me at your earliest convenience.

Your kindness will be greatly appreciated. I appreciate this opportunity. Many thanks.

Sincerely, the Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting work that fits well within the scope of this Journal. New data are presented, whereas the experimental approach used was solid. Some small comments/suggestions are given hereafter:

1. Line 29: Replace ‘used to producing with ‘used to produce’ or ‘used for producing’.

2. Line 38: Add a reference on the decomposition rate of Al-Mg alloys.

3. Line 55-56: Replace ‘in a heat treatable alloys precipitation processes remarkably’ with ‘in heat treatable alloys, precipitation processes remarkably’.

4. How many tensile tests did you perform per condition? If multiple tests were performed then the experimental spread of results should be included in Table 3.

5. The mechanical properties are explained mostly in terms of grain refinement and dislocation density. However, the presence of intermetallics can also have a strong effect on mechanical behavior of your material (dislocation pinning .phenomena). I assume that due to the ECAP and aging processing the size, distribution and Vol.% of intermetallics might have changed. Do you have any information/observations on this? If yes, please include this in the text.

6. Line 238-241: You mention the effect of alloying elements (Si and Fe) and the formation of intermetallic in the range of ppm. However, from the binary Al-Mg phase diagram and for the selected composition, the formation of Al3Mg2 can be seen, which to my point of view can have an effect on the tensile behavior of the alloy (as also mentioned in previous point).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very satisfied with this detailed review of our work, in most cases, the reviewer with special care and attention review the content of this article giving us precise remarks and valuable suggestions what has to be improved. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be evaluated again and at the same time, we are convinced that the performed corrections based on the reviewer comments contributed to the improvement of the quality of the presented article and had enabled the authors to look from a different point of view at our work. Please find below, the response to reviewer remarks. New text were marked as red in manuscript in order to facilitate the tracking of changes.

Sincerely thanks for reviewing our article.

If there are any problems in the article and further revisions are needed, please inform me at your earliest convenience.

Your kindness will be greatly appreciated. I appreciate this opportunity. Many thanks.

Sincerely, the Authors

Dear author,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

·         The materials were supplied by who?

·         Line 67 – According which standard?

·         Table 4 - The values presented are average values? The standard deviation? How many tests were performed in each evaluation?

·         Line 107 – An the results are present in Figure???

·         The increase/decrease observed in the properties evaluated after artificial ageing should be also presented in percentage. It was expected the behavior observed in this study? Why?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your valuable remarks, please find in attachment answers for the questions.

Kind regards

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf