Next Article in Journal
Development and Fabrication of Biocompatible Ti-Based Bulk Metallic Glass Matrix Composites for Additive Manufacturing
Next Article in Special Issue
Properties of Padding Welds Made of CuAl2 Multiwire and CuAl7 Wire in TIG Process
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Scanning Strategy on the Microstructure and Triboperformance of FeNiCrMo Coating Manufactured by Plasma Transferred Arc
Previous Article in Special Issue
Microstructure Evolution of the Near-Surface Deformed Layer and Corrosion Behavior of Hot Rolled AA7050 Aluminum Alloy
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Effect of Grain Structure and Quenching Rate on the Susceptibility to Exfoliation Corrosion in 7085 Alloy

Materials 2023, 16(17), 5934; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16175934
by Puli Cao 1,2, Chengbo Li 1,2,3,*, Daibo Zhu 1,2,*, Cai Zhao 1,2, Bo Xiao 1,2 and Guilan Xie 1,2
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Materials 2023, 16(17), 5934; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16175934
Submission received: 6 August 2023 / Revised: 19 August 2023 / Accepted: 26 August 2023 / Published: 30 August 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Please see the attached file.

Author Response

The replies to your suggestions are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

In this article, the authors have studied the influence of grain structures and quenching rates on the exfoliation corrosion of 7085 Al alloy. The samples before and after corrosion have been characterized by various techniques. The manuscript can be accepted for publication with revisions based on following comments.

1.     The corrosion behavior of Al7085 are significantly affected by the grain size, grain boundary and internal stress. Can author provide the quantitative analysis of these samples instead of quantitative ones, for example, the average grain size, number of grain boundaries in different sample before corrosion experiment? These data can be correlated to the corrosion rate in the discussion.

2.     Line 188, the GBPs (η phase) size in the BG samples is 10 nm smaller than that in the EG samples. What is the error for the grain size? Is 10 nm within the error range? How was the size measured if they have irregular shapes?

3.     Lin215 to 225, what is meaning of the corrosion products?

4.     In figure 8, how do the authors confirm the TEM samples were prepared from the corrosion area, not from the unreacted part?

need to be corrected for some grammar error. 

Author Response

The replies to your suggestions are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

the manuscript studies the effect of Grain Structure and Quenching Rate on the 2 Susceptibility to Exfoliation Corrosion in 7085 Alloy. The manuscript has serious flaws and cannot be considered for publication in its current form:

1- The language of the manuscript is not fit to the requirement of the journal. It should be revised by a native speaker who is an expert in the field.

2- The Introduction is not well organized and the results of the other references about the effect of grain structure were not discussed in detal. 

Please cite the followoing refernces about the effect of the grain structure on the corrosion behaviour of the 7xxx alloys and extend the introduction. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.12.028

3- Regarding the initiation and propagation of the corrosion-induced crack, there is no enough explanation and discussion about the HAGB vs LAGB, etc. Please explain and clarify them carefully. 

4- The role of the PFZ was not explained in depth. What is the relationship between the HAGBs and PFZ with the craking behavior?

5- The discussion part is very poor and I'm not satisfied with the discussion and explanations. It should be extended with the focus on the explanation about the microstrucute and grain boundary orientaition with corrosion behavior.

 

The language of the manuscript is not fit to the requirement of the journal. It should be revised by a native speaker who is an expert in the field.

Author Response

The replies to your suggestions are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Please see the attached file.

Author Response

Responses to the review suggestions are attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The comments were answered satisfactorily. It can be considered for publication. 

It required a minor revision in style and language.

Author Response

Responses to the review suggestions are attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop