Validation of Experimental Data for the Application of the Magnesium Alloy “Elektron 43”

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents experimental and numerical characterization of the magnesium Elektron 43 alloy with respect to its potential application, i.e. the spreader installed on airplane passenger seats. It is practical, rather well-organized and well-suited to the scope of the Aerospace journal. It can be considered for publication after some minor changes:

1. There is lack of references in the Table 1.

2. The Figure 1 should be corrected, i.e. lack of the thickness of the tensile test and there are no dimensions in the gage length section of the notched sample.

3. The legend in the Figure 2a should be corrected, i.e. lack of strain rate 100 s-1.

4. Line 156: The term "failure diameter" should be explained in the paper. Actually, there are no experimental results of the tensile test of notched samples. Please explain.

5. Lines 239-240: Why so small forces were used in the experiments of the spreader? The strain values in Tables 14-16 are quite small (< 0.001) while the strain gauges are working mostly in a much higher range up to few percents of deformation. Please explain.

6. Most of strain values in Tables 14-16 determined by numerical and experimental analysis are very close to each other. The only bigger difference can be noticed for the strain gauge no. 3 during testing a 10 Kg (Table 16). What could be the reason of this difference?

7. In general, I suggest to change the title of the paper. It suggests that the paper is focused mainly on the experimental results while in fact the majority of the presented results refers to the numerical simulations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is rather well presented. However, some expressions could be written more clearly, so I suggest to proofread it by a native English speaker or at least edit it at the final proof stage by the MDPI editorial office.

Author Response

I appreciate the reviewers' encouragement, since I made the necessary modifications to the work to fully increase its quality.

 

Reviewer #1

The paper presents experimental and numerical characterization of the magnesium Elektron 43 alloy with respect to its potential application, i.e. the spreader installed on airplane passenger seats. It is practical, rather well-organized and well-suited to the scope of the Aerospace journal. It can be considered for publication after some minor changes:

 

1. There is lack of references in the Table 1.

I added the references

2. The Figure 1 should be corrected, i.e. lack of the thickness of the tensile test and there are no dimensions in the gage length section of the notched sample.

I completed adding more details

3. The legend in the Figure 2a should be corrected, i.e. lack of strain rate 100 s-1.

I modified the figure considering the missing curve about the compression

4. Line 156: The term "failure diameter" should be explained in the paper. Actually, there are no experimental results of the tensile test of notched samples. Please explain.

This sentence was changed to make its meaning clearer.

5. Lines 239-240: Why so small forces were used in the experiments of the spreader? The strain values in Tables 14-16 are quite small (< 0.001) while the strain gauges are working mostly in a much higher range up to few percents of deformation. Please explain.

As explained in the aim of the test, the load cases allowed the measurement of the surface stress of a component subjected to a load by measuring the local surface strain of the material. This experimental step is essential to correlate the results of the FEM simulation, in the critical areas of the component, in order to validate the design phase.

6. Most of strain values in Tables 14-16 determined by numerical and experimental analysis are very close to each other. The only bigger difference can be noticed for the strain gauge no. 3 during testing a 10 Kg (Table 16). What could be the reason of this difference?

I corrected the value, which was mistakenly reported in the previous version.

7. In general, I suggest to change the title of the paper. It suggests that the paper is focused mainly on the experimental results while in fact the majority of the presented results refers to the numerical simulations.

Thanks for your suggestion, I modified the title of the paper

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.    The present title does not reflect the research content of the article. The author titled the paper as "Experimental characterization of the magnesium alloy “elektron 43”". Based on the title, it seems that the author will study some experiments. Actually, he just simulates. Such a description is some confusing and the title must be changed.

2.    In the introduction section, the authors need to provide detailed information on current progress and previous work. Also, the research purpose of this must be highlighted in the end of the introduction section.

3.    What was the chemical compositions of the magnesium alloy “elektron 43？

4.    The mechanism discussion of the data is insufficient. A separate discussion section is required to improve the readability and clarity of the manuscript.

5.    Conclusions must be polished. The present REMARKS may be put into the new separate discussion section.

6.    The state of the art is shallow. I propose to expand the number of references.

7.    English should be carefully polised.

Author Response

I appreciate the reviewers' encouragement, since I made the necessary modifications to the work to fully increase its quality.

 

Reviewer #2

1. The present title does not reflect the research content of the article. The author titled the paper as "Experimental characterization of the magnesium alloy “elektron 43”". Based on the title, it seems that the author will study some experiments. Actually, he just simulates. Such a description is some confusing and the title must be changed.

Thanks for your suggestion, I modified the title of the paper

2. In the introduction section, the authors need to provide detailed information on current progress and previous work. Also, the research purpose of this must be highlighted in the end of the introduction section.

The most recent research on the magnesium alloy, Elektron 43, ref. 5, is cited.

3. What was the chemical compositions of the magnesium alloy “electron 43” ?

I have included a hyperlink to the magnesium alloy Elektron 43, which includes comprehensive information on its chemical composition.

4. The mechanism discussion of the data is insufficient. A separate discussion section is required to improve the readability and clarity of the manuscript.

Thank you; following two modifications, the paper's readability was enhanced. I appreciate your ideas.

5. Conclusions must be polished. The present REMARKS may be put into the new separate discussion section.

It’s ok

6. The state of the art is shallow. I propose to expand the number of references.

I provided several references to experimental data for metallic characterization; nonetheless, the bibliography does not provide any further options for this magnesium alloy.

7. English should be carefully polised.

It’s ok

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept