Numerical Simulation and Process Optimization of Magnesium Alloy Vehicle Dashboard Cross Car Beam (CCB) Based on MAGMA
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The current work focuses on the numerical simulation and process optimization of magnesium alloy vehicle dashboard Cross Car Beam (CCB) based on MAGMA. This paper should be major revised before consideration of acceptance for the following reasons.
1、 The current problem existed in the traditionally methods is not clear. Just saying ‘imperfect design of mold structure and process parameters’ is not enough.
2、 The numbers of legend are not clear, including almost all the Figures, that must be revised.
3、 The experimental results cannot verify the simulation works totally. More results are in need. For example, the mechanical properties, surface quality, SEM of microstructure and so on.
4、 The innovation of this idea is insufficient.
5、 The expression should be polished carefully.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors carried out casting experiments of a Mg-alloy cross bar beam, with different runner systems and casting parameters. However, several issues should be addressed before publication, as follows
(1) The author needs to seek the help of a professional English writer to improve the readability of this paper.
(2) The authors have run simulation of two different runner systems (i.e., Figure 2-3), and concluded that the pouring system of scheme 2 was better than scheme 1. However, they did not analyze the root reason why the scheme 2 is better.
(3) Section 3.2, please state how the authors obtain the “air entrapment rate” and “shrinkage cavity rate” ? If it is based on simulation, please explain the algorithm clearly in the section of the experiment method.
(4) Figure 11 shows an X-ray result of a cross car beam. Please support the information of the X-ray machine in the experiment section, especially the minimum resolution of the X-ray. In addition, if it is allowed, please state what is the production standard (e.g. ASTM E505?) that product meet?
(5) Figure 2-4 and Figure 8, the font size in the images is too small to be read…
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper can be accepted as it is.
Author Response
Thank you for your approval of this article.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors carried out casting experiments of a Mg-alloy cross bar beam, with different runner systems and casting parameters. However, several issues should be addressed before publication, as follows
(1) The author needs to seek the help of a professional English writer to improve the readability of this paper.
(2) The authors have run simulation of two different runner systems (i.e., Figure 2-3), and concluded that the pouring system of scheme 2 was better than scheme 1. However, they did not analyze the root reason why the scheme 2 is better. In other words, based on this comparison, can we obtain any method that is helpful for the runner design of other products?
(3) Section 3.2, please state how the authors obtain the “air entrapment rate” and “shrinkage cavity rate” ? If it is based on simulation, please explain the algorithm clearly in the section of the experiment method.
(4) Section 3.3, MAGAMA simulation result is not necessarily correct, and it can not be used as a direct evidence of the air entrainment rate and shrinkage rate. I suggest the author sampling some coupons from the castings, and carried out a statistical comparison of the defect size and amount, to indicate the difference of the air entrainment rate and shrinkage rate before and after the optimization.
(5) Section 3.4, please show some castings before the optimization (even not fulfilled), and describe the difference.
(6) Figure 11 shows an X-ray result of a cross car beam. Please support the information of the X-ray machine in the experiment section, especially the minimum resolution of the X-ray. In addition, if it is allowed, please state what is the production standard (e.g. ASTM E505?) that product meet?
(7) Figure 2-4 and Figure 8, the font size in the images is too small to be read…
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
it is good
