Research of Friction Stir Welding (FSW) and Electron Beam Welding (EBW) Process for 6082-T6 Aluminum Alloy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made a good work on comparison between FSW and EBW for joining 6082 aluminum alloy. The paper has valid characterizations and is written well and provides good results. Following issues were detected in the paper:

1-      Briefly mention the parameters in the abstract.

2-      At the end of introduction clearly explain what you intend to do (the process, characterization, and the goal of the study).

3-      The criteria for selection of welding parameters (both FSW and EBW) need to be explained. If we chose other parameters, would not we get better results?

4-      It is recommended to show the precipitates with arrows. The precipitates in E seem to be coherent, while in F and G are not.

5-      The same comment for figure 6.

6-      One important result is missing to be mentioned here. The main difference in mechanical properties in FSW and EBW results from microstructure differences in HAZ. Both samples failed in HAZ. This reference is recommended to be used for justification of decrease in hardness in HAZ of FSW “A Parametric Study on the Effect of FSW Parameters and the Tool Geometry on the Tensile Strength of AA2024–AA7075 Joints: Microstructure and Fracture“. In FSW, the drop in hardness in HAZ is higher than one in EBW. Why? The authors need to explain this in detail. It may be due to the heat effects of two processes in the HAZ. The authors are recommended to refer this for justifying the heat effects “Computational Concepts in Simulation of Welding Processes, 2022, Springer“.

7-      The conclusion needs to state the difference in fracture behavior of two joints with regards to microstructure evolution in HAZ of two joints.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The answers are in the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article deals with the very interesting issue of aluminum alloy welding. It provides a comparison of the properties of welded joints made by the EBW and FSW methods. Due to the use of aluminum in the construction of various products, it has the potential to be cited.

I have the following comments on the article:

1. The dimensions of the test samples for the evaluation of properties by tensile test (Fig. 1) are not standard. Why didn't you use the dimensions given in the relevant standards for tensile testing of sheet metal?

2. Fig. 9 shows a decrease in strength, but also in ductility. The drop in ductility is very significant with EBW. What causes it?

3. In the abstract and conclusion, it would be necessary to add findings about the decrease in ductility of welded materials.

4. Will your findings also apply to welding aluminum materials of other thicknesses?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

answers are in the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The abstract's opening sentences are unsuitable for this section and should be removed and addressed in the introduction section. The abstract should be written better and needs minor revisions. The purpose of research and innovation should be clearly stated. Also, the performed tests should be presented first, and then the results should be presented quantitatively and qualitatively.

The article needs general writing and grammar editing. The introduction is very general. Although the introduction is long, it is written superficially in some paragraphs. Also, in the end, a suitable summary of the importance of the present issue should be provided.

Use the following resources to deepen the introduction. Comparison between laser beam and gas tungsten arc tailored welded blanks via deep drawing. An Exhaustive Evaluation of Fracture Toughness, Microstructure, and Mechanical Characteristics of Friction Stir Welded Al6061 Alloy and Parameter Model Fitting Using Response Surface Methodology.

Figures 1 and 2 can be deleted. It is suggested to summarize the welding parameters in a table. How has the reproducibility of these results been checked? The tensile test standard, displacement measurement method and accuracy, and the number of repetitions of the results should also be mentioned.

For the third chapter (results and discussion) subsections should be defined and mechanical and microstructural properties should be presented in two subsections.

The results of the examination of mechanical properties should be presented quantitatively in a table. Strength, elongation, and microhardness in different areas.

The results section is well organized and categorized. But some parts report the results, which require corrections and deepening the analysis and discussion. In the conclusion section, a summary of the purpose of the research, innovation, and research method should be presented before presenting the highlights.

***

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

The answers are in the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The results presented in the manuscript may be of interest to specialists, graduate students and students who study the strength of welding joints of aluminum constructional elements.

 

The manuscript needs additions supplementation with the necessary information.

 

1. Line 192. It is necessary to indicate that the chemical composition is given in weight %.

2. You should indicate the brand of the Energy-dispersive X-ray Spectrometer (EDS) to the HITACHI SU-70 electron microscope, which was used to determine the distribution of chemical components shown in Fig.3 and Fig. 7.

Together with HITACHI SU-70, different EDS devices with different resolution characteristics can be used.

3. Line 278. It is necessary to specify the tensile strain rate and temperature when testing samples of welded joints.

4. Line 292. It is necessary to indicate which stress-strain curves are shown in Fig. 9 (true stresses - true strains or engineering stresses - engineering strains).

5. Line 296. It is necessary to indicate the intervals of reliability of the parameters determined as a result of the experiments performed and shown in Table 5.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editorial correction of the text is required. For example: Line 18 (Microstructural tests (MO, SEM, TEM)  =>Microstructural tests (MO, SEM, and TEM).

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

The answers are in the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is acceptable now.