Effect of Current Input Method on A356 Microstructure in Electromagnetically Stirred Process
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The manuscript describes electromagnetic stirring process of more industrial amount of the Al alloy. The work’s experiments are based on the microstructural examination only. Therefore it has a very limited scientific interest. To strength the work you have to add mechanical properties experimental results and their discussion.
Additionally some remarks should be considered:
- You have mentioned that the electromagnetic stirring process on small amounts of alloy (3kg) has been published. Please add the relevant bibliography.
- Figures 1 and 4 are not photographs, they are schematic representation. Please change accordingly.
- Explanation depends A356 alloy should be in Introduction and not in Experimental work. Please change accordingly.
- Please add the description of the microscope used for microstructural investigations.
- Several typing mistakes should be corrected: page 6: different font for “Table 3 shows”; page 7: the word “of”, “maximum”, “It”, “symmetric”, “greatest” are broken. It continues all over the page8.
- In Figure 7 you have pointed on different positions. Are you sure these positions are related to Figure 4? Maybe Figure 5?
- In conclusions you can’t mention figures as you did in (1). Please correct.
Author Response
Reviewer 1.
We are grateful to you for the valuable comments and suggestion. I agree with you. So we added some information about mechanical properties. We have added something about a microscope. The revised part is highlighted by Blue in the manuscript.
Page 9~10 – “Figure 9 shows the Vickers hardness…” , Figure 9, 4. Conclusion number 4.
- 1. You have mentioned that the electromagnetic stirring process on small amounts of alloy (3kg) has been published. Please add the relevant bibliography.
Response: We have added a new reference. The revised part is highlighted by Green in the manuscript, as shown below,
Page 11 - “21. Kang, CG; Bae, JW; Kim, BM. The grain size control of A356 aluminum alloy by horizontal electromagnetic stirring for rheology forging, Journal of Mat. Pro. Technology, 2007, Vol. 187, pp.344-348”
“22. Zoqui, EJ; Paes, M; Sadipi EE. Macro- and microstructure analysis of SSM A356 produced by electromagnetic stirring, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 2002, Vol. 120, pp. 365-373”
- Figures 1 and 4 are not photographs, they are schematic representation. Please change accordingly.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have changed “Photograph” into “scheme” in Figure 1 and 4. The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript.
- Explanation depends A356 alloy should be in Introduction and not in Experimental work. Please change accordingly.
Response: I have brought the explanation about A356 alloy from experimental work to introduction as below. The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript.
- Please add the description of the microscope used for microstructural investigations.
Response: We have added something about a microscope. The revised part is highlighted by Purple in the manuscript, as shown below,
Page 6, 2nd paragraph – “In the present work, the macrostructure and microstructures were captured by a system of image analyses coupled to a optical microscope.”
- Several typing mistakes should be corrected: page 6: different font for “Table 3 shows”; page 7: the word “of”, “maximum”, “It”, “symmetric”, “greatest” are broken. It continues all over the page8.
Response: Thank you for your comment. There were too many mistakes and the revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript: Page7~8
- In Figure 7 you have pointed on different positions. Are you sure these positions are related to Figure 4? Maybe Figure 5?
Response: It's our typing mistake. These positions are relevant in Figure 5. My notation was wrong. I modified it to figure 5. The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript
- In conclusions you can’t mention figures as you did in (1). Please correct.
Response: It's our typing mistake. We have delete figures. The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Congratulations for the interesting experiments. Anyway I would like to point out some issues which will improve your article for best.
First of all next time you should use the numbering of the lines in the manuscript form, which are given for easiness of reviewers, editors and authors, of course, handling the manuscript.
- Page 1, 1. Introduction, 2nd paragraph - “In order to solve this difficulty…” – consider using “In order to solve this problem…” or “In order to overcome this difficulty…”
- Page 2, 2nd paragraph – “…showed a significantly smaller solid particle and lower roundness compared to slurries without electromagnetic stirring” – do you mean the roundness is better, e.g. they are more round then compared to slurries without electromagnetic stirring? Consider revising, to point it out clearly.
- Page 2, 2.1.1, 2nd paragraph – “Figures 1 (a) and (b)” – there are no (a) and (b) on Figure 1.
- Page 2, 2.1.1, 2nd paragraph – “…show the structure and actual picture of the electromagnetic stirrer.” – it is not a picture, but rather a scheme or drawing.
- Page 3, “Figure 1. Photograph of electromagnetic stirring” – consider to change it to “scheme” or “drawing”, which is more correct.
- Page 3, the inscription of Figure 1 is given twice.
- Page 3 – “Figure 2 shows the position where the electromagnetic force was measured using a Gauss meter.” – on figure 2 there are given 6 positions, point them out here.
- Page 3, table 1 – there are given the sizes, which are also in page 2, 2.1.1., 1st paragraph (The total outer diameter of the electromagnet was ∅600 mm, the inner diameter ∅145 mm, the height 260 mm, and the total weight of the electromagnet 190 kg). But on page 3 is written: “A crucible ∅137 mm in the upper diameter, ∅71 mm in the lower diameter, and 240 mm in height, as well as having a weight of 3 kg, was adopted in this study.” It is confusing – why you give the sizes (tbl 1) and a scheme (figure 1) of an equipment which you are not using?
- Page 4, 2.1.2, after table 2 – “The liquidus and solidus temperatures of the material are 553 ℃ and 617 ℃, respectively,…..” – liquidus should be 617, and solidus – 553, swap the temperatures.
- Page 5, table 2 – there is mistake in polarity for CAMP method: (+) are a, c, e and (-) are b,d,f. Every couple of poles has “+” and “-” pole, as where the current enters is “+”, and where the current exits – “-”. In the way you gave it there is one couple only “+” poles and one – only “-” poles, which is not possible. Also correct the letters in the text right after table 2.
- Page 5, paragraph after table 2 – ‘’… in Figure 1 (b)…” – should be “… in Figure 4 (b)…”.
- Page 6, Figure 4. Photograph…. consider to change it to “scheme” or “drawing”, which is more correct.
- Page 6, last paragraph – “Figure 4 shows the photos….” should be “Figure 5 shows the photos….”
- Page 7, figure 5 “Photographs of A356 sample and the position of the microstructure measurement point: (a) As-casting; (b) CSMP of Table2; (c) CAMP of Table2” – it is more correct “(a) as-cast condition”, or “as-cast billet”
- Page 8, 3.2. –“Figures 7 is observations of the microstructure” consider changing to “Figures 7 shows microstructure observations”.
- Page 8, 3.2. – some words are stick together, like “andeutectic”, “togetherby”, “roundnesscompared”.
- Page 9, figure 7 –“ Microstructure of AC4C 100x” – what is AC4C? Can you provide more clear /sharp microstructure pictures?
- Page 9, 1st paragraph – “Figures 8” – does not need to be in plural.
- Page 10, 1st paragraph – “However, the simultaneous current…..” should be “Also, the…..” as here, as in the previous sentence, you are comparing the slurries without and with stirring, and all the good results are for the stirred slurries.
- Page 10, 1st paragraph – “…the roundness was 3.9,…” give here for a comparison the roundness of an ideal circle - I presume it is 1, but it should be pointed out.
- Page 10, 4. – “An experiment of the microstructure change was conducted by current input method usi ng a large electronic stirrer with an outer diameter of ∅600 mm, an inner diameter of ∅145 m m, and a height of 260 mm.” Again here is a contradiction with page 3 - “A crucible ∅137 mm in the upper diameter, ∅71 mm in the lower diameter, and 240 mm in height, as well as having a weight of 3 kg, was adopted in this study.”
- Page 10, 4, (3) “CSMP could obtain….” You have actually obtained it, be more categorical, in such a way it sounds as a suggestion.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 2.
We are grateful to you for the valuable comments and suggestion. There were too many mistakes, and we went over them one by one.
- Page 1, 1. Introduction, 2nd paragraph - “In order to solve this difficulty…” – consider using “In order to solve this problem…” or “In order to overcome this difficulty…”
Response: The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript.
Page 1, 1. Introduction, 2nd paragraph - “In order to solve this difficulty” →
“In order to solve this problem”
- Page 2, 2nd paragraph – “…showed a significantly smaller solid particle and lower roundness compared to slurries without electromagnetic stirring” – do you mean the roundness is better, e.g. they are more round then compared to slurries without electromagnetic stirring? Consider revising, to point it out clearly.
Response: Thank you very much for your good review. We added content to make understanding. The revised part is highlighted by Red in the manuscript.
Page 2, 2nd paragraph – “In response reology forming, ultrafine particles close to spherical can be obtained instead of coarse resinous tissue present in ordinary castings, so they are highly fluid, low strain resistance, and good mechanical material properties”
- Page 2, 2.1.1, 2nd paragraph – “Figures 1 (a) and (b)” – there are no (a) and (b) on Figure 1.
Response: The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript.
Page 3, 2.1.1, 2nd paragraph – “Figures 1 (a) and (b)” → “Figure 1”
- Page 2, 2.1.1, 2nd paragraph – “…show the structure and actual picture of the electromagnetic stirrer.” – it is not a picture, but rather a scheme or drawing.
Response: The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript.
Page 3, 2.1.1, 2nd paragraph – “show the structure and actual picture” →
“show the structure and actual scheme”
- Page 3, “Figure 1. Photograph of electromagnetic stirring” – consider to change it to “scheme” or “drawing”, which is more correct.
Response: The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript.
Page 3, “Figure 1. Photograph of electromagnetic stirring” → “scheme”
- Page 3, the inscription of Figure 1 is given twice.
Response: we delete one Figure 1. The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript.
- Page 3 – “Figure 2 shows the position where the electromagnetic force was measured using a Gauss meter.” – on figure 2 there are given 6 positions, point them out here.
Response: We added a definition of six points to Figure 2. The revised part is highlighted by Gray in the manuscript.
Page 4 – “Six points were defined to identify the difference between magnetic flux density and microstructure of the center and surface of the electromagnet. Points ①, ② and ③ are the center of the electromagnet, and points ④, ⑤, ⑥ indicate the surface area.”
- Page 3, table 1 – there are given the sizes, which are also in page 2, 2.1.1., 1st paragraph (The total outer diameter of the electromagnet was ∅600 mm, the inner diameter ∅145 mm, the height 260 mm, and the total weight of the electromagnet 190 kg). But on page 3 is written: “A crucible ∅137 mm in the upper diameter, ∅71 mm in the lower diameter, and 240 mm in height, as well as having a weight of 3 kg, was adopted in this study.” It is confusing – why you give the sizes (tbl 1) and a scheme (figure 1) of an equipment which you are not using?
Response: The crucible is a molten metal container. We defined the size of the container. However, we deleted the contents to prevent confusion.
- Page 4, 2.1.2, after table 2 – “The liquidus and solidus temperatures of the material are 553 ℃ and 617 ℃” – liquidus should be 617, and solidus – 553, swap the temperatures.
Response: The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript.
Page 2, after table 2 – “The liquidus and solidus temperatures of the material are 553 ℃ and 617 ℃” →
“The liquidus and solidus temperatures of the material are 617 ℃ and 553 ℃”
- Page 5, table 2 – there is mistake in polarity for CAMP method: (+) are a, c, e and (-) are b,d,f. Every couple of poles has “+” and “-” pole, as where the current enters is “+”, and where the current exits – “-”. In the way you gave it there is one couple only “+” poles and one – only “-” poles, which is not possible. Also correct the letters in the text right after table 2.
Response: The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript.
Page 5, table 2 – “+ was input to ⓐ, ⓑ, ⓔ, - was input to ⓒ, ⓓ, ⓕ” →
“+ was input to ⓐ, ⓒ, ⓔ, - was input to ⓑ, ⓓ, ⓕ”
- Page 5, paragraph after table 2 – ‘’… in Figure 1 (b)…” – should be “… in Figure 4 (b)…”.
Response: The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript.
Page 5, paragraph after table 2 - “in Figure 1 (b)” → “in Figure 4 (b)”
- Page 6, Figure 4. Photograph…. consider to change it to “scheme” or “drawing”, which is more correct.
Response: The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript.
Page 5, Figure 4. “Figure 4. Photograph” → “Figure 4. Scheme”
- Page 6, last paragraph – “Figure 4 shows the photos….” should be “Figure 5 shows the photos….”.
Response: The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript.
Page 6, 2nd paragraph - “Figure 4 shows the photos….” → “Figure 5 shows the photos….”
- Page 7, figure 5 “Photographs of A356 sample and the position of the microstructure measurement point: (a) As-casting; (b) CSMP of Table2; (c) CAMP of Table2” – it is more correct “(a) as-cast condition”, or “as-cast billet”.
Response: The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript.
Page 6, figure 5 - “(a) As-casting; (b) CSMP of Table2; (c) CAMP of Table2” →
“(a )As-cast billet (b) CSMP of Table2; (c) CAMP of Table2.”
- Page 8, 3.2. –“Figures 7 is observations of the microstructure” consider changing to “Figures 7 shows microstructure observations”.
Response: The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript.
Page 7, 3.2 - “Figures 7 is observations of the microstructure” →
“Figures 7 shows microstructure observations”
- Page 8, 3.2. – some words are stick together, like “andeutectic”, “togetherby”, “roundnesscompared”.
Response: The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript.
Page 7~8, 3.2. - “andeutectic”, “togetherby”, “roundnesscompared” →
“and eutectic”, “together by”, “roundness compared”
- Page 9, figure 7 –“ Microstructure of AC4C 100x” – what is AC4C? Can you provide more clear /sharp microstructure pictures?
Response: The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript.
Page 9, figure 7 - “Microstructure of AC4C 100x” → “Microstructure of A356 100x”
- Page 9, 1st paragraph – “Figures 8” – does not need to be in plural.
Response: The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript.
Page 9, 1st paragraph - “Figures 8” → “Figure 8”
- Page 10, 1st paragraph – “However, the simultaneous current…..” should be “Also, the…..” as here, as in the previous sentence, you are comparing the slurries without and with stirring, and all the good results are for the stirred slurries.
Response: The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript.
Page 9, 1st paragraph – “However, the simultaneous current” → “Also, the simultaneous current”
- Page 10, 1st paragraph – “…the roundness was 3.9,…” give here for a comparison the roundness of an ideal circle - I presume it is 1, but it should be pointed out.
Response: Thanks for the good review. Our content simply represents a stirring effect. There are many other ways to get the roundress level close to 1. (e.g. solidification, injection conditions). These attempts will lead to more research. We also added content to measure hardness and support our stirring effects. The revised part is highlighted by blue in the manuscript.
Page 9 ~10, after Figure 8 and conclusion (4) - Figure 9 shows the Vickers hardness measured at positions 1) to 6) in Figure 5 for the semi-melt slurry to which electronic stirring was applied. The average value was shown by measuring the hardness of five times per one location. CSMP, which has the best stirring effect, measured 80 HV to 64 HV, and CAMP 72.1 HV to 59.1 HV. In addition, the highest hardness value was measured at the center of the slurry with high magnetic flux density and good roundness.
- Page 10, 4. – “An experiment of the microstructure change was conducted by current input method usi ng a large electronic stirrer with an outer diameter of ∅600 mm, an inner diameter of ∅145 m m, and a height of 260 mm.” Again here is a contradiction with page 3 - “A crucible ∅137 mm in the upper diameter, ∅71 mm in the lower diameter, and 240 mm in height, as well as having a weight of 3 kg, was adopted in this study.”
Response: As mentioned above, we deleted the contents to prevent confusion.
- Page 10, 4, (3) “CSMP could obtain….” You have actually obtained it, be more categorical, in such a way it sounds as a suggestion.
Response: The revised part is highlighted by Yellow in the manuscript.
Page 10, 4. Conclusion, number (4) “CSMP could obtain” → “CSMP showed”
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper “Effect of Current Input Method on A356 Microstructure in Electromagnetically Stirred Process” undertake the problem of improving mechanical properties of die-casting alumina alloys by using stirring during semi-solid state forming processes. The developing new ways for improving the mechanical properties of aluminum alloys is crucial from the point of high-tech science and industry.
Authors has been taken into account the different combination of the experiments and they also use the larger amount of metals – more adequate to the industrial conditions.
Author Response
Reviewer 3.
The paper “Effect of Current Input Method on A356 Microstructure in Electromagnetically Stirred Process” undertake the problem of improving mechanical properties of die-casting alumina alloys by using stirring during semi-solid state forming processes. The developing new ways for improving the mechanical properties of aluminum alloys is crucial from the point of high-tech science and industry.
Authors has been taken into account the different combination of the experiments and they also use the larger amount of metals more adequate to the industrial conditions
Response: Thank you for your nice comment. We will conduct research on more conditions ahead. Please look forward to it.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you very much for the review you have done. However, its looks like you did it very quick and didn’t check the remarks you have provided. The manuscript has very many mistakes:
- You have moved Table 2 and Figure 3 to the Introduction. Why? I have mentioned that the text related to Al A356 should be moved. Moreover, you have not changed the numbering of these items.
- I don’t understand your statement that you have mentioned in 4 related to microscopy. “I have added something”. It’s really nice to add something, but you have to add the information about the equipment you have used. Name, model etc. related to the device.
- Nothing was done about the fracture of the words, pages 6-12. The words should be typed TOGETHER and not like “th – e” (I think you have suggested “the”).
- I found a new figure 9 which is describes Vickers hardness. You must add the description of the parameters and device you have used in the work in “Experimental”. Moreover, you must do at least 3 tests at each point and to add a standard deviation to the presented plot.
Author Response
Reviewer 1.
We are grateful to you for the valuable comments and suggestion. We didn't understand your meaning.
1. You have moved Table 2 and Figure 3 to the Introduction. Why? I have mentioned that the text related to Al A356 should be moved. Moreover, you have not changed the numbering of these items.
Response: Sorry, We didn't understand your meaning. But we finally found out. The revised part is highlighted by Green in the manuscript, as shown below,
1. Introduction line 6 - In particular, research on A356 is increasing in recent industries.A356 material has good fluidity in the solid-liquid coexistence zone and its mechanical strength can be improved through heat treatment. Therefore, it is used for parts requiring strength and reliability such as knuckles, arms and housings of automobiles. In particular, the mechanical properties of A356 are closely related to the size of primary α-Al particles, secondary dendrite arm spacing (SDAS), and the distribution of Si particles in the process [1, 2].
Page 4, 2.1.2 Material for Semi-Solid Surry – Table 2 and Figure 3
Reference 1, 2
2.I don’t understand your statement that you have mentioned in 4 related to microscopy. “I have added something”. It’s really nice to add something, but you have to add the information about the equipment you have used. Name, model etc. related to the device..
Response: We added a process for viewing microstructure and a description of the microscope. The revised part is highlighted by Blue in the manuscript, as shown below,
Page 6, 2nd paragraph - The microstructure observation method first cut the specimen, went through the mounting and polishing process, followed by etching 35g of FeCl3 35g (200ml of water) and HNO3 in turn and observing the micro-organization using optical microscope. In this study, the microstructure is masured and captured by optical microscope named BX53M model. the detailed information about microscope is listed in table 5. A Vickers hardness tester was used to investigate the mechanical properties of the semi-melt slurry to which electronic stirring was applied. The hardness tester used in this paper is the HM-100 model from Mitutoyo. Pyramid type diamond indenter (marker) is pressed against the surface of the material to make a pit, and it is expressed as the value obtained by dividing the surface area of the permanent pit remaining after removing the load. The hardness of the semi-melt slurry to which electronic stirring was applied was measured three times at six positions of the cross section as shown in Figure 5. In the section where the electronic agitation occurs, the magnetic flux density of the central and surface parts of the slurry is different, and the cooling rate is different, so the mechanical properties will be different
3.Nothing was done about the fracture of the words, pages 6-12. The words should be typed TOGETHER and not like “th – e” (I think you have suggested “the”).
Response: We didn't understand the word "broken" at first. But we could understand it thanks to your detailed review. Thank you very much for your good review. Please check the manuscript.
Page 6-12
4 I found a new figure 9 which is describes Vickers hardness. You must add the description of the parameters and device you have used in the work in “Experimental”. Moreover, you must do at least 3 tests at each point and to add a standard deviation to the presented plot..
Response: As mentioned above, the revised part is highlighted by Blue in the manuscript, as shown below,
Page 6, 2nd paragraph - The microstructure observation method first cut the specimen, went through the mounting and polishing process, followed by etching 35g of FeCl3 35g (200ml of water) and HNO3 in turn and observing the micro-organization using optical microscope. In this study, the microstructure is masured and captured by optical microscope named BX53M model. the detailed information about microscope is listed in table 5. A Vickers hardness tester was used to investigate the mechanical properties of the semi-melt slurry to which electronic stirring was applied. The hardness tester used in this paper is the HM-100 model from Mitutoyo. Pyramid type diamond indenter (marker) is pressed against the surface of the material to make a pit, and it is expressed as the value obtained by dividing the surface area of the permanent pit remaining after removing the load. The hardness of the semi-melt slurry to which electronic stirring was applied was measured three times at six positions of the cross section as shown in Figure 5. In the section where the electronic agitation occurs, the magnetic flux density of the central and surface parts of the slurry is different, and the cooling rate is different, so the mechanical properties will be different
Page 10, Figure 9
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the revision.
