Prediction of Earing of Cross-Rolled Al Sheets from {h00} Pole Figures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents texture data in the form of 200 pole figures for an aluminium alloy rolled in different ways with the most prominent difference being unidirectional and cross rolling. The two types of rolling produces different textures. A method to be published elsewhere is applied to predict earing and the predictions are compared to measurements on a drawn cup. Different scaling factors are employed to compare the two types of rolling.
Major points:
The explanation of the method to predict the earing is totally insufficient to understand what is done. These is a reference to a manuscript in review in another journal. Even if this other manuscript was published more details are needed here.
The two types of rolling give different textures. The authors refer to these as having two-fold and four-fold symmetry. While it is correct that there are such symmetries for rotation around ND, the usual way to describe this would be in terms of texture components. It appears that the texture after unidirectional rolling is a normal rolling texture (as one should expect). For the cross-rolling the Cube component appears dominant from the 200 polefigure (which does not necessarily show the full texture). A comment of this should be given – with a reference to the starting texture also.
The use of a scaling factor is crucial for the predicted results. The choice of 40 and 60, which are used for the unidirectional and cross-rolled samples, respectively, is not sufficiently explained. It appears to be based on comparison to experimental data. The statement ’using the correct scaling factor, the developed method was proved to be suitable to reliably predict the type and magnitude of earing’ is a gross misinterpretation of the results. The type was predicted, the magnitude was only predicted after calibration to find the scaling factor.
When stating in the discussion that ’the location of ears can be more easily determined from the weighted {100} intensity diagrams than from the measured cup height diagrams’, the authors appear to trust the model they are supposed to validate more than the experimental data. This is not scientifically sound.
The very last statement about ’requirement for only one deep-drawing test for quantitative data’ is totally unwarranted. The deep drawing test alone would have provided the same type of data without the need for or benefit from prediction. A deep drawing test for each rolling method was needed – the predictions did not show much difference without the scaling, which appear to be based solely on the experiment. There is no demonstration that e.g. earing after another rolling reduction would be predictable based on the presented results without more experiments. In other words, the authors fail to demonstrate the benefit of their procedure.
Minor points:
It seems odd to enforce othorhombic symmetry for unidirectional rolling and triclinic for the cross rolling. Orthorhombic symmetry should be expected from both modes – and is also found. The authors should use the same calculation method for both types of rolling.
The level of detail given for the parameters of the 12 pass rolling should be the same as for the 6 pass rolling.
The colour coding for the pole figures probably refers to the contour lines. Because these cannot be seen clearly, the colour coding is obsolete.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript presents texture data in the form of 200 pole figures for an aluminium alloy rolled in different ways with the most prominent difference being unidirectional and cross rolling. The two types of rolling produces different textures. A method to be published elsewhere is applied to predict earing and the predictions are compared to measurements on a drawn cup. Different scaling factors are employed to compare the two types of rolling.
Major points:
The explanation of the method to predict the earing is totally insufficient to understand what is done. These is a reference to a manuscript in review in another journal. Even if this other manuscript was published more details are needed here.
The applied method is explained in more details in the revised version of the manuscript.
The referred manuscript [12] has been accepted for publication, its status is changed to “in press” in the “References” section.
The two types of rolling give different textures. The authors refer to these as having two-fold and four-fold symmetry. While it is correct that there are such symmetries for rotation around ND, the usual way to describe this would be in terms of texture components. It appears that the texture after unidirectional rolling is a normal rolling texture (as one should expect). For the cross-rolling the Cube component appears dominant from the 200 pole figure (which does not necessarily show the full texture). A comment of this should be given – with a reference to the starting texture also.
Cube texture has high intensities in the centre (ND) and in the RD+(n*90°) directions on {200} pole figures. In the case of cross rolling, high intensities appear in different directions, thus, it is not the cube component that is strong after cross-rolling. Texture components are not presented and discussed in this manuscript since the presented method relies only on complete {200} pole figures.
The use of a scaling factor is crucial for the predicted results. The choice of 40 and 60, which are used for the unidirectional and cross-rolled samples, respectively, is not sufficiently explained. It appears to be based on comparison to experimental data. The statement ’using the correct scaling factor, the developed method was proved to be suitable to reliably predict the type and magnitude of earing’ is a gross misinterpretation of the results. The type was predicted, the magnitude was only predicted after calibration to find the scaling factor.
The determination of the scaling factor is described in more details. The Reviewer is right, the sentence: The statement “using the correct scaling factor, the developed method was proved to be suitable to reliably predict the type and magnitude of earing” is not proper, therefore it has been removed from the “Discussion” section.
When stating in the discussion that ’the location of ears can be more easily determined from the weighted {100} intensity diagrams than from the measured cup height diagrams’, the authors appear to trust the model they are supposed to validate more than the experimental data. This is not scientifically sound.
The sentence “Furthermore, the locations of ears can be more easily determined from the weighted {200} intensity diagrams than from the measured cup height diagrams.” has been deleted from the “Discussion” section.
The very last statement about ’requirement for only one deep-drawing test for quantitative data’ is totally unwarranted. The deep drawing test alone would have provided the same type of data without the need for or benefit from prediction. A deep drawing test for each rolling method was needed – the predictions did not show much difference without the scaling, which appear to be based solely on the experiment. There is no demonstration that e.g. earing after another rolling reduction would be predictable based on the presented results without more experiments. In other words, the authors fail to demonstrate the benefit of their procedure.
The statement “requirement for only one deep-drawing test for quantitative data” was removed form the “Discussion” section.
Minor points:
It seems odd to enforce othorhombic symmetry for unidirectional rolling and triclinic for the cross rolling. Orthorhombic symmetry should be expected from both modes – and is also found. The authors should use the same calculation method for both types of rolling.
Results were recalculated using orthorhombic symmetry for both unidirectional and cross-rolled data. Corresponding Figures have been replaced in the revised manuscript.
The level of detail given for the parameters of the 12 pass rolling should be the same as for the 6 pass rolling.
Details for parameters of 12 pass rolling is completed and is similar to 6 pass rolling in the revised version.
The colour coding for the pole figures probably refers to the contour lines. Because these cannot be seen clearly, the colour coding is obsolete.
The colour codes have been deleted from pole figures.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Page 2, line 64, 69
"The rolling gap" should be replaced by "reduction".
Page 2, line 67
Were "The second set of samples" rolled with 12 passes? Please, mention this here.
Page 2, line 70
It's better to mention here the parameters of deep drawing test (at least, drawing ratio and blankholder force).
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Page 2, line 64, 69 "The rolling gap" should be replaced by "reduction".
“Rolling gap” was replaced to “reduction” on page 2, lines 64 and 69.
Page 2, line 67 Were "The second set of samples" rolled with 12 passes? Please, mention this here.
The second set of samples were rolled within 12 steps, which is inserted into the sentence on page 2, line 67 of the revised version.
Page 2, line 70 It's better to mention here the parameters of deep drawing test (at least, drawing ratio and blankholder force).
The diameter of deep drawing samples and drawn cups, drawing ratio and blank holder force are inserted into the revised version of the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
referee report
metals 674031
Prediction of earing of cross-rolled Al sheets from 3 {h00} pole figures
Marton Benke, Bence Schweitzer, Adrienn Hlavacs and Valeria Mertinger
This manuscript reports on rolling Al sheets and the earing effect. This is an interesting topic for
processing of Al sheets, and the topic is well suited for Metals.
The present manuscript is well written and executed, but there are some comments on the presentation
of the data to be made:
(1) First of all, it is a must to provide the readers a table with all investigated samples and their properties.
(2) It would be very good to add set of microstructure images, may it be optical images, SEM images, etc. This will
help the readers considerably.
The figures are mostly well prepared, except Figs. 2 and 5, where the angle PHI should be written using the proper
Greek letter. If this is not possible in the software, then please arrange it with a different software and copy the
letter, e.g., Corel Draw.
The references are provided in a funny way. The journal Metals uses the numerical system, and the authors provided
the other system in the main text, but at the end, they follow the numerical system. Secondly, the way of writing the
citations is not consistent -- there are two ways the authors have done it, e.g., Huh_2001, but also Engler, 2011. And,
if using the alphabetical citation system, then the reference list should be in alphabetical order.
Overall, the manuscript can be published when the authors work in the comments made above.
Author Response
The present manuscript is well written and executed, but there are some comments on the presentation of the data to be made:
(1) First of all, it is a must to provide the readers a table with all investigated samples and their properties.
Table 1 is inserted which summarizes the parameters of the examined samples.
(2) It would be very good to add set of microstructure images, may it be optical images, SEM images, etc. This will help the readers considerably.
Optical microscope images of longitudinal samples are embedded into the revised version.
The figures are mostly well prepared, except Figs. 2 and 5, where the angle PHI should be written using the proper Greek letter. If this is not possible in the software, then please arrange it with a different software and copy the letter, e.g., Corel Draw.
The angle PHI is written with Greek letter instead of “PHI” in Figs 2 and 5.
The references are provided in a funny way. The journal Metals uses the numerical system, and the authors provided the other system in the main text, but at the end, they follow the numerical system. Secondly, the way of writing the citations is not consistent -- there are two ways the authors have done it, e.g., Huh_2001, but also Engler, 2011. And, if using the alphabetical citation system, then the reference list should be in alphabetical order.
The numerical reference style was applied in the revised version of the manuscript.
Overall, the manuscript can be published when the authors work in the comments made above.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have improved the manuscript sufficiently.
