Effects of Gradient Hot Rolled Deformation on Texture Evolution and Properties of 1561 Aluminum Alloy
, Xiangjie Wang 1,2,*, Fang Yu 1,2, Wei Sun 1,2, Lei Li 1,2 and Jianzhong Cui 1,2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- The language of the manuscript needs considerable improvement. There are many poorly constructed sentences right from the abstract.
- Although the manuscript contains detailed experimental results, the manuscript lacks novelty in content.
- The gradient hot rolling is not a new process, but just the experimental constraints that induced gradient strain in the material. The characterization is also along the well established lines and the results are trivial.
- Strictly speaking, the dislocation density should be calculated from the Lorentzian component of the xrd results and not the entire Guassian profile.
- The authors appears to attempt generalized understanding of the rolling process by measuring different location of the hot rolled structure. Except the number of additional data points, these extra data does not help in generalization. In fact, if the authors can correlate the hot rolling industrial parameters such as rolling speed, temperature etc to predict the texture or atleast the severity of the texture, it might help in process design. For that authors need to perform a lot of experiments.
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewers:
All the authors of this manuscript are grateful to you and the reviewers for the valuable comments and suggestions. We have made revisions in this paper according to the comments and suggestions from the reviewers. Based on the attached document you provided, we have modified some statements in this article to avoid duplication with the content previously published work. In addition, we have tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some slight revisions e.g. grammar mistakes and ill sentences in the manuscript. The primary revisions and the responds to the reviewer’s comments in the following attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review comments Manuscript number: crystals-1565191
Title: Effects of Gradient Hot Rolled Deformation on Texture Evolution and Properties of 1561 Aluminum Alloy
This manuscript studies the effect of hot rolling and annealing on an aluminum alloy's microstructural evolution, mechanical behavior, and thermal conductivity. The authors present microstructural characterization by light microscopy and EBSD demonstrating the formation of a heterogeneous structure, a topic of increasing interest in recent years. However, the methodology presented by the authors is only descriptive, and no analyzes are provided that give innovation and relevance to the subject of heterogeneous materials. On the other hand, the manuscript presents drafting and order problems describing the figures.
Abstract
The abstract is adequate and consistent with the manuscript content.
1-Introduction
The introduction is acceptable
2-Experimental procedures
2.1 To which the authors refer with the following expression (page 3, lines 108-109): The rolling direction (RD), transverse direction (TD), and normal 108 direction (ND) represented different rolling directions.
2.2 What EC stands for on page 3, line 116. I guess electrical conductivity? All abbreviations must be defined when they first appear in the manuscript.
2.3 Specify the indexing percentage of the EBSD scans and the method used to correct non-indexed points.
2.4 It is recommended to describe in greater detail the conditions of the rolling process.
3-Results and discussion
3.1 The reference system must be indicated in figures 2 and 3.
3.2 The size of the addresses in the IPF triangle should be improved.
3.3 To better observe the differences between the different conditions in figures 6 and 7, it is recommended to use the same scale.
3.4 Figure 8 shows nothing. Everything is blank.
3.5 The legends in figure 9 cannot be differentiated. The font size must be increased.
3.6 All items in figure 3 must be mentioned. The authors mention only Figure 3, but it is not easy to know which of all the items within the figure they refer to.
3.7 lines 137-138. The authors state the following: Further observation shows that after hot rolling, the second phases are broken and elongated along the rolling direction during deformation. It is not known to which figure they refer. If it is figure 3, honestly, it is not appreciated which are the second phases.
3.8 Again, the authors mention Figure 4 as if it were one, and it is difficult to know what items within this figure they refer to. It is an issue that makes it difficult to review the manuscript, and that is presented in all the figures made up of several items.
3.9 The abbreviations LABs and HABs are not defined in the text.
3.10 What do negative volume fractions mean in Figure 10?
3.11 Page 11, lines 289-291. The following expression is a bit contradictory. The authors say that the crystals refine and then express the crystals grow. At the same time, comparing the two states, it is found that the corresponding diffraction peak intensity of the H2 plate is low and the width is large, which indicates that the crystal grains are refined, and the crystal grains have grown to a certain extent after annealed.
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewers:
All the authors of this manuscript are grateful to you and the reviewers for the valuable comments and suggestions. We have made revisions in this paper according to the comments and suggestions from the reviewers. Based on the attached document you provided, we have modified some statements in this article to avoid duplication with the content previously published work. In addition, we have tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some slight revisions e.g. grammar mistakes and ill sentences in the manuscript. The primary revisions and the responds to the reviewer’s comments in the following attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, the hot deformation behavior of the 1561 Aluminum alloy was investigated through gradient hot rolling. The manuscript has some interesting results and can be acceptable in this journal after major revision.
Comments:
- There are a lot of mistakes in the manuscript, which may cause misunderstanding. It would be proper to carefully review the manuscript before resubmission.
- The introduction section is not well structured and the authors did not properly clarify the motivation and novelty of their work. In addition, different research works were mentioned in the introduction only but not reviewed.
- Some of the abbreviations are repeated in the manuscript. For instance, electron backscatter diffraction technology (EBSD).
- It is suggested that the authors use a more detailed schematic illustration to clearly present their work, including the sites of the selection of the samples.
- What are the as-cast 1 plate and 2 in figure 2?
- On page 4, it is mentioned that "Further observation shows that after hot rolling, the second phases are broken"; however the phases of the as-cast sample were not evaluated.
- Some parts of the manuscript are not clear for example:
Page 5: "During the deformation process, since the grains participate in the increase of deformation dislocations, and the grains are coordinated with each other, the slip system starts in different areas within the grains, and gradually causes the division of each area to form each block, and the dislocation configuration has a spontaneous direction."
Page 6: "which improves the energy of de refinement formed alloys and hinders the movement of grain boundaries, leading to the grain during the recrystallization."
- What are the differences between low-angle grain boundaries and small-angle grain boundaries?
- Unfortunately, PFs and IPFs in figure 8 are completely white and do not show anything.
- More discussion should be included.
- The authors must compare their work with various articles that have been published in this field.
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewers:
All the authors of this manuscript are grateful to you and the reviewers for the valuable comments and suggestions. We have made revisions in this paper according to the comments and suggestions from the reviewers. Based on the attached document you provided, we have modified some statements in this article to avoid duplication with the content previously published work. In addition, we have tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some slight revisions e.g. grammar mistakes and ill sentences in the manuscript. The primary revisions and the responds to the reviewer’s comments in the following attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The response and modifications from the authors are satisfactory.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript still has some serious language issues. There is no innovation neither in the methodology nor in the analysis and discussion of results.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have made changes in the manuscript and have improved the general quality. In my opinion, it has reached the publication standard; however, the following points must be considered before final publication.
Comments:
- Still, a lot of mistakes can be seen in the manuscript.
- Fig. 8 is meaningful; however, the quality of PFs and IPFs could be improved.
