On the Relationship between Thermomechanical Processing Parameters and Recrystallization Texture in AA1100 Aluminum Alloy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this work, the double-hit compression tests were carried out to investigate the texture evolution of AA1100 aluminum alloy sheets. Authors mainly summarized the previous studies in the introduction section. Authors carried out the extensive experiments systematically. This study could be helpful for the Al industries. However, there is several concerns to be checked for the publication in Metals as follows:

1. In the introduction section, it would be helpful for readers to understand why authors carried out the double-hit compression tests since this test is unique materials testing method.

2. ODF maps or pole figures would be helpful to understand the texture evolution intuitively.  

3. Authors presented the magnified maps of the sampled after EBSD analysis. I recommend that the Entire maps can be presented first followed by the magnified maps.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file of Responses to comments and list of changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors gained significant amount of results. On the other hand their presentation can be confusing due this amount which can be difficult for the reader to understand. Maybe some of them should be considered to be moved into appendix (in some cases less results presented can improve the readability). Also all the figures should be check to have full and understandable captions (see the last but one point). It seems the authors did not perform the final check of the manuscript (see the last point). Despite those facts the manuscript has potential for publication. Some remarks follow:

Fig.1: The specimen thickness?

In row 102 is stated that the specimens were deformed by double hit compression. In Fig.2 is stated hot rolling. The RD is then the direction of compression? Is the term hot rolling appropriate for this paper?

I am convinced that for as deformed specimens the step size was much smaller than 1 micrometer. I do not fully understand the sentence on row 153 to 155. What does mean „With respect to the inverse pole figure with magnification“

of

Row 158 and 159 There are also some as deformed (non recrystallized areas for example in Fig 6c and others). However they are smaller.

I am not sure what the authors wanted to show by the KAM figures and in the text. The question is the uncertainty of the orientation of specific points. I assume that there are some deviations (sometimes called „MAD“ or other names used as well). Usually the value 0.2° is considered as very low. Especially at this highly deformed specimen probably barely achievable. Therefore I assume that some variations in order of few tenths of degrees can be expected?

The EBSD images were taken exactly at the same position of the specimens? It can be disputable to make conclusions based only from an area of 2.6 x 2 mm for the whole specimen. In this case the reproducibility could be challenging. This should be highlighted in the paper.

The Q = 156 kJ/mol claimed to be reported in ref.27 has been determined for exactly the currently studied alloy? (I have no full access to this article).

Figure 13. I do not fully understand the figure caption. The points in Fig.13a are not defined (empty black) as well as those in 13d.

The end of the manuscript such as “acknowledgements” and “conflict of interests” etc. Should be added.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file of Responses to comments and list of changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors submitted a manuscript titled „On the Relationship between Thermomechanical Processing Parameters and Recrystallization Texture in AA1100 Aluminum Alloy.” After minor revision, the work can be published. My comments, which can help improve the manuscript, are presented below.

Introduction

- Line 28. The data “1989” is not necessary.

-Line 88. What were the criteria for the selection of these 12 variants? Did you perform some experiments earlier?

Methodology

-Tables 2 and 3. Different font sizes.

-Line 135. Double dot.

Results

-Please underline the scientific problem that has been solved thanks to your experiments. You did a lot of experiments, but the scientific discussion should also be included. I mean the comparison of your data with the literature.  

Conclusion

- This is a short summary, not a conclusion. In the conclusions section, you should include the most important outputs from your research. In this version, it is not present.

References

-Check the style one more.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file of Responses to comments and list of changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf