Numerical Simulation of Wire Rod Cooling in Eutectoid Steel under Forced-Convection
, Héctor Javier Vergara-Hernández 1,*, Sixtos Antonio Arreola-Villa 2, Octavio Vázquez-Gómez 1,3 and MartÃn Herrejón-Escutia 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
The paper before publication the paper have to be corrected and in some cases some addiction should be made. Below are listed things that should be changed.
- Rewrite the abstract,
- Look in the text for faults like [1]-[2] should [1,2] or [11], [13] – [15] should be [11, 13-15], look carefully for °C (for example look line 7 from the bottom of the page 10). Look also for
s-1 should be s-1(in text are a lot of problem with this).
- Page 2 chemical composition should be in table, good would be to present it in comparison with standard(s), what steel grade is taken into testes in the abstract and first part of paper it is not presented.
- If authors presents microstructure after process should be presented microstructure of the initial state.
- Fig 1 should be enlarged
- Page 3 1 sentence in the Mathematical model have to rewrite – hard to understand.
- Page 5 two time model (11) and the second (11) is in table.
- Fig 2. too small and should be centered
- Fig 3 – enlarge
- Fig 4 – enlarge and unify the marks in fig 4 a-d.
- Page 8 line 19 from the bottom fault in °C.
- Fig 6 c and d not visible. why c) is 2500x not like other 3000x?
- Conclusions should be corrected.
- Where are presented microhardness? In conclusions are presented information about this values.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- Under 2.1 Material section, the statement is “The wire rod 68 section was machined to obtain cylindrical specimens of 0.01 and 0.015 m in diameter, 69 with a length of 0.040 and 0.060 m, respectively.“ Why this dimension is considered? Is it as per the standard or convenience? Or at least give the literature proof.
- Under 2. Physical Model, it is mentioned as “Specimens are heated to a temperature of 860 °C at an average heating rate of 0.3 °C s-1 and cooled under forced convection using air until room temperature was reached.“ Why heating is fixed to 860 °C? Please give the reason and incorporate in the manuscript.
- Under 2. Physical Model, it is mentioned as “The specimens were mounted on bakelite and grinded 91 using SIC sandpaper ----”. Please correct SIC as SiC and bakelite as Bakelite.
- Under 1. Thermal model, for Eq. 1, please give literature support.
- Please mark the elements in SEM images (Figure 6).
- In figure 6, the magnification of all the images must be same for easy comparison. Figure c is different compared to other 3. Please replace image c for uniformity.
Under the Reference, in paper title some places, each word of the first letter is capital. Please maintain uniformity throughout.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is interesting. There are some confusions regarding the English language, as concluding in stead of completing. The manuscript should be carefully read and perform the necessary corrections. There are also some small editing errors that should be corrected. Could you explain why the microhardness have the smallest value for sample c? The are 3 are almost the same but for sample c there is a difference.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In this form the paper can be published
