Microstructure-Based Modeling and Mechanical Characteristics of Accumulative Roll Bonded Al Nanocomposites with SiC Nanoparticles
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. State the manufacturer(s) of those raw materials, such as Al and SiC. Also state the manufactures of those instruments (ARB,etc..)used to process the samples.
2. The dispersion of SiC is not enough only in acetone for 90 seconds using 92 a sonicator.
3. It needs stronger evidence supported by the observation at the interface of Al and SiC. Please provide the corresponding TEM image and the corresponding HRTEM image.
4. Please provide image of tensile curve of each sample rather than just the data.
5. The differences of microstructure and mechanical properties in different samples and ARB passes have to be described and discussed furtherly.
6. Please discuss the mechanism of the grain orientation transformation of composites after ARB.
Author Response
Response to the Comments of the Editor and Reviewer comments
Manuscript Number: metals-1970400
Dear Prof.
Editor of Journal of metals
First of all, thank you for your response to our article submission. We appreciate the constructive feedback that permits us to modify and enhance our work to be published in one of the most powerful and respectable journals.
In addition, we want to express our deep thanks to the valuable suggestions and comments raised by the reviewers. Below is our response to all comments point-by-point.
The modifications are made in the manuscript in red color.
Editor and Reviewer comments:    
Reviewer #1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- State the manufacturer(s) of those raw materials, such as Al and SiC. Also state the manufactures of those instruments (ARB,etc..)used to process the samples.
Thank you very much for your comment. Done.
- The dispersion of SiC is not enough only in acetone for 90 seconds using 92 a sonicator.
Thank you very much for your comment. The dispersion of SiC in acetone was just to ensure we can spray it over the Al sheets. Several studies has reported that 90 seconds is enough time for dispersion of micro size particles in acetone giving that the acetone viscosity is relatively low. The dispersion might be insufficient if the particles in nanosize.
- It needs stronger evidence supported by the observation at the interface of Al and SiC. Please provide the corresponding TEM image and the corresponding HRTEM image.
We thank the reviewer for his/her suggest. Unfortunately, all the samples we have has been tested under tensile tests, so, we ca not perform TEM on it due to the plastic deformations occurred. However, we added a magnified SEM at the interface between Al and SiC, which prove the good bonding at this interface.
- Please provide image of tensile curve of each sample rather than just the data.
We added the tensile stress-strain curve for the samples.
Figure 9. Stress–strain curves of Al and Al/4%SiC composite produced by the ARB process at various passes.
- The differences of microstructure and mechanical properties in different samples and ARB passes have to be described and discussed furtherly.
Done.
- Please discuss the mechanism of the grain orientation transformation of composites after ARB.
Done.
We hope all the modifications made in the manuscript can help to better explain our work and improve the quality of the manuscript, so it can be accepted for publication in Metals.
Sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1) The chemcial composition of AA1050 is wrong in Table 1.
2) It is difficult to understand the SEM images in Fig. 5. I am not sure the authors give the right figures. For ARB layer composites, our results are quite different with them.
3) The tensile curves in Fig. 9 should be revised. The elastic modulus of Al is wrong. For Al composite, the elastic modulus should be larger than pure Al.
4) I can not understand the meaning of FEM results for development of the composites.
Author Response
Response to the Comments of the Editor and Reviewer comments
Manuscript Number: metals-1970400
Dear Prof.
Editor of Journal of metals
First of all, thank you for your response to our article submission. We appreciate the constructive feedback that permits us to modify and enhance our work to be published in one of the most powerful and respectable journals.
In addition, we want to express our deep thanks to the valuable suggestions and comments raised by the reviewers. Below is our response to all comments point-by-point.
The modifications are made in the manuscript in red color.
Editor and Reviewer comments:    
Reviewer #2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1) The chemcial composition of AA1050 is wrong in Table 1.
Thank you for your valuable comment. Done.
2) It is difficult to understand the SEM images in Fig. 5. I am not sure the authors give the right figures. For ARB layer composites, our results are quite different with them.
Thanks for your comment. We presented in this figure just the area around the interface between the layer to follow the distribution of the particle inside the matrix with increasing the ARB cycles. Also, we added a figure highlighted the good interfacial bonding between Al and SiC after 5 ARB cycles.
3) The tensile curves in Fig. 9 should be revised. The elastic modulus of Al is wrong. For Al composite, the elastic modulus should be larger than pure Al.
The initial part of the curve is affected by the stiffness of the machine grip, we preferred to present the figure as obtained without extraction of this part for the reason of honesty. However, if you consider the slope of the stress-strain curve until the yield strength as recommended by the ASTM standard, you will notice that the elastic modulus of Al is lower than Al-SiC.
4) I can not understand the meaning of FEM results for development of the composites.
The FEM model is presented as a reliable tool to predict the response of Al-SiC composites prepared by the ARB method, where, the only think you need to feed the model is the mechanical properties of the composite constituents, Al and SiC, and the interfacial properties. Then, the model can predict the Eleatic modulus, yield and maximum strength.
We hope all the modifications made in the manuscript can help to better explain our work and improve the quality of the manuscript, so it can be accepted for publication in Metals.
Sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Memorandum
Subject: Review, October 19, 2022
Metals
Microstructure-based modeling and mechanical characteristics of accumulative roll bonded Al nanocomposites with SiC nano-particles
Ghazi S. Alsoruji 1, Ayman M. Sadoun 1 and M. Elmahdy 2,*
Comments:
1. The authors should consider adding a nomenclature to identify parameters and abbreviations used throughout the paper.
2. The authors should highlight in some details the experiment tests performed and showing a photo of the experimental setup is very helpful.
3. All the figures, the slides and the fringe plots lack descriptive representations. Labels must be added pointing out at lye point of interests on each image indicating what is being noted in the results and shown.
4. Matlab and Ansys have to referenced.
5. A schematic showing dimensions of the specimens recommended be included in the text.
6. The finite element model must be identified, number of elements, type and number of nodes. The axis of reference must be shown next to Figure 4.
7. In Figure 9, the stress strain curve, the authors must identify the experimental data from the analytical validation. It can be done on the legend.
8. The Fringe plots shown in Figures 10, 11 and 12 do not have any units.
9. Figure 8 is not mentioned in the text and not even discussed.
10. The authors approach to the analytical calculations applied the composite materials as an isotropic. Typically, composite materials are treated as anisotropic, it would be helpful if the authors can elaborate on their assumptions by adding a mini explanation.
11. The conclusion can be improved, the current statements do not offer a clear concluding remark. The authors should cite what was accomplished and what may have impacted the outcome of the study if any exists. Considering a bullet type statement citing what was found and if anything may have impacted the results would serve the reader better.
Overall, the paper is relatively in good format, upon addressing the above issues, then it can be considered for publication.
Author Response
Response to the Comments of the Editor and Reviewer comments
Manuscript Number: metals-1970400
Dear Prof.
Editor of Journal of metals
First of all, thank you for your response to our article submission. We appreciate the constructive feedback that permits us to modify and enhance our work to be published in one of the most powerful and respectable journals.
In addition, we want to express our deep thanks to the valuable suggestions and comments raised by the reviewers. Below is our response to all comments point-by-point.
The modifications are made in the manuscript in red color.
Editor and Reviewer comments:    
Reviewer #3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- The authors should consider adding a nomenclature to identify parameters and abbreviations used throughout the paper.
Thanks for this valuable comment and we add it to the revised version
- The authors should highlight in some details the experiment tests performed and showing a photo of the experimental setup is very helpful.
Thank you for your valuable comment. Done.
- All the figures, the slides and the fringe plots lack descriptive representations. Labels must be added pointing out at lye point of interests on each image indicating what is being noted in the results and shown.
Thank you for your valuable comment. Done.
- Matlab and Ansys have to referenced.
Done.
- A schematic showing dimensions of the specimens recommended be included in the text.
Thank you for your valuable comment. Done.
Specimens of tensile test were machined by a wire cut machine from the rolled sheets according to the 1/5 scale of the JIS-No. 5 specimen, oriented along the rolling direction as shown in Fig. 2. The gauge length and width of the tensile test specimens were 10 and 5mm, respectively.
- The finite element model must be identified, number of elements, type and number of nodes. The axis of reference must be shown next to Figure 4.
Done.
- In Figure 9, the stress strain curve, the authors must identify the experimental data from the analytical validation. It can be done on the legend.
Done.
- The Fringe plots shown in Figures 10, 11 and 12 do not have any units.
Done. We added the units to the caption because the ansys doesn’t add the units at the color bar.
- Figure 8 is not mentioned in the text and not even discussed.
Fig. 8 now is Fig.10 in the new version. We enhanced the discussion on the effect of ARB on the mechanical response.
- The authors approach to the analytical calculations applied the composite materials as an isotropic. Typically, composite materials are treated as anisotropic, it would be helpful if the authors can elaborate on their assumptions by adding a mini explanation.
Thanks for your comment. The analytical calculation was used to get the average stress and strain in the composite after simulation, Equation 2 an d 3. However, in the FE modeling, the model considers this material as composite material with two different isotropic materials. So, no special assumptions have been used here.
- The conclusion can be improved, the current statements do not offer a clear concluding remark. The authors should cite what was accomplished and what may have impacted the outcome of the study if any exists. Considering a bullet type statement citing what was found and if anything may have impacted the results would serve the reader better.
Done.
Overall, the paper is relatively in good format, upon addressing the above issues, then it can be considered for publication.
Thank you very much for your comments.
We hope all the modifications made in the manuscript can help to better explain our work and improve the quality of the manuscript, so it can be accepted for publication in Metals.
Sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
English language and style are fine/minor spell check required. Everything else is OK.
Author Response
Response to the Comments of the Editor and Reviewer comments
Manuscript Number: metals-1970400
Dear Prof.
Editor of Journal of metals
First of all, thank you for your response to our article submission. We appreciate the constructive feedback that permits us to modify and enhance our work to be published in one of the most powerful and respectable journals.
In addition, we want to express our deep thanks to the valuable suggestions and comments raised by the reviewers. Below is our response to all comments point-by-point.
The modifications are made in the manuscript in red color.
Editor and Reviewer comments:    
Reviewer #1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
English language and style are fine/minor spell check required. Everything else is OK.
Thank you very much for your comment. Done.
We hope all the modifications made in the manuscript can help to better explain our work and improve the quality of the manuscript, so it can be accepted for publication in Metals.
Sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
