Correlation between Mechanical Properties—Structural Characteristics and Cavitation Resistance of Cast Aluminum Alloy Type 5083
, Bogdan Florea 5 and Brândușa Ghiban 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper reports mechanical properties, microstructure and cavitation resistance of 5083 alloy. Some comments are listed below:
1. How many samples were used for mechanical properties? In figures 2-5. There is no error bar.
2. Some spelling mistakes are present. For example, “grain coursing in fusion welding [9].” should be “coarsening”, “after quenching la 350ï‚°C” should be “at”.
3. “÷” is not correct. Please use “-”. For example, “4,072 ÷ 4,07” “450°C + 180°C”, “figures 11÷13” “60÷120 minutes”
4. “3.4. Determination of the behavior of experimental specimens in cavitational crosion” should be described in experimental method.
5. “4. Discussion” should be described in “results”
6. Conclusion are too long. Only main points should be listed.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your positive feedback. You ask to clarify more details on the aluminum alloys, which certainly would give an improvement for our research. So, thank you for these valuable comments. We have tried to answer to all aspects that were mentioned.
Point 1. How many samples were used for mechanical properties? In figures 2-5. There is no error bar.
Answer 1: For each mechanical properties sample we used 5 samples. We modify the figure 2-5, including error bar.
Point 2. Some spelling mistakes are present. For example, “grain coursing in fusion welding [9].” should be “coarsening”, “after quenching la 350°C” should be “at”.
Answer 2: We replace „grain cousing” with „coarsening grain”, we replace „la” with „at”.
Point 3. “÷” is not correct. Please use “-”. For example, “4,072 ÷ 4,07” “450°C + 180°C”, “figures 11÷13” “60÷120 minutes”
Answer 3: We modify in text all the recommendations: we replace „¸” with „-” in all part of the text.
Point 4. “3.4. Determination of the behavior of experimental specimens in cavitational crosion” should be described in experimental method.
Answer 4: We described part 4 (Discussion) in part 3, results, interpretations and discussion. Part 3.4 we put in Experimental methods.
Point 5. “4. Discussion” should be described in “results”
Answer 5: We modify the title of part “3. Results, Interpretations and Discussion” and put all the comments at the end of the part 3.
Point 6. Conclusion are too long. Only main points should be listed.
Answer 6: We modify the text of conclusions, by pointing out the main remarks, as you suggested
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I request you to address the following points in the revision.
1. Dont use CAPS in the title.
2. Line no 25-28 is looks like a introduction. Need not to be mentioned in the abstract.
3. On what basics the authors choose the 350 temperature as a solutinizing? Did you have any valid literature proof.
4. 100 min holding also kind of long period. At 450 deg the aging temperature is changed. What is the reason. On a comparison side all the temperature must be uniform.
5. Line no 39 mechanical characteristics or properties?
6. The language of the article need to be refined well. There are so many problem in understanding the sentences.
7. check line 97 in the manuscript. , angular range measuring 2θ = 200 - 1000 ( 103 )
8. Table 2 check the spell of strength. Include std deviation in tables.
9. The tabular coloumn may be plotted with other tools. It's looks clumpsy.
10. Fig 6, there is no micron marker in the image. Also the phases can be marked.
11. As the lattice parameter is increased, the crystallite size also increase. What is the reason.
12. How many no of samples used for cavitation corrosion and erosion. What is the angle used in erosion.
13. Fig 14 and 15 may be club it together and request the authors to include the high resolution image.
In general, the article must be go for complete revision and the author must refine the language.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your positive feedback. You ask to clarify more details on the aluminum alloys, which certainly would give an improvement for our research. So, thank you for these valuable comments. We have tried to answer to all aspects that were mentioned.
- Dont use CAPS in the title.
Answer: we modify the letters of the title
- Line no 25-28 is looks like a introduction. Need not to be mentioned in the abstract.
Answer: we delete the detailes of the treatments, and modify the text
- On what basics the authors choose the 350 temperature as a solutinizing? Did you have any valid literature proof.
Answer: We select the temperatures of the homogenization by literature and by our own research.
Our research in a novelty in the field of heat treatments applied to 5083 aluminum alloys.
- 100 min holding also kind of long period. At 450 deg the aging temperature is changed. What is the reason. On a comparison side all the temperature must be uniform.
Answer: after each homogenization temperature the holding time was the same, 100 minutes, as is recommended by the manufacturing companies.
- Line no 39 mechanical characteristics or properties?
Answer: we do not find in the text such observations.
We determined mechanical characteristics.
- The language of the article need to be refined well. There are so many problem in understanding the sentences.
Answer: we try to explain the best ideas.
- check line 97 in the manuscript. , angular range measuring 2θ = 200 - 1000 ( 103 )
Answer:There was an error of writen , we modify by putting the degree. We replace „2θ = 200 – 1000” with” 2θ = 20° - 100°”.
- Table 2 check the spell of strength. Include std deviation in tables.
Answer: we correct the tensile strength, insert in the standard deviation for all mechanical characteristics
- The tabular coloumn may be plotted with other tools. It's looks clumpsy.
Answer: We follow the template in which there are no vertical lines in a table.
- Fig 6, there is no micron marker in the image. Also the phases can be marked.
Answer: We made grains size analysis and put the captured images after the analysis. We insert the scale of the magnification for each images. The structure is dendritic one with segregation with very small particles precipitated in the matrix which can not be observed at optical microscopy.
We insert the scale in all images.
- As the lattice parameter is increased, the crystallite size also increase. What is the reason.
Answer: The increased latice parameter is due to increased the particle size precipitated after aging heat treatments.
- How many no of samples used for cavitation corrosion and erosion. What is the angle used in erosion.
Answer: We use for each test cavitation 3 samples, in the same conditions. The sonotrode is axial with the sample axis, the surface which generate the cavitation waves is perpendicular to the cavitated surface, in according with standard recomendations.
- Fig 14 and 15 may be club it together and request the authors to include the high resolution image.
Answer: We combine figure 14 and figure 15 in one figure, respectivelly figure 14. The figure 14 contains high resolution images at SEM.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised manuscript has been improved. It should be considered for possible publication in the present form.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors incorporated all suggestions during the review process. However, the language needs undergo substantial revision. If possible, Kindly use the standard editorial service to edit the language.
