Next Article in Journal
Prediction of Thermal Distortion during Steel Solidification
Next Article in Special Issue
Enhancement of In Vitro Bioactivity of One-Step Spark Plasma Sintered Porous Titanium by Alkali-Treatment
Previous Article in Journal
Study of Mineralogy and Metallurgical Properties of Lump Ores
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Tensile and Fracture Behavior of Bi-Containing Alloy Sintered on SAE 1010 Steel Sheet

Metals 2022, 12(11), 1806; https://doi.org/10.3390/met12111806
by Seung-Hyon Song 1, Chang-Soon Lee 1, Tae-Hwan Lim 1, Auezhan Amanov 2,* and In-Sik Cho 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Metals 2022, 12(11), 1806; https://doi.org/10.3390/met12111806
Submission received: 16 September 2022 / Revised: 18 October 2022 / Accepted: 20 October 2022 / Published: 25 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Structure and Application of Porous Metallic Materials)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript reports the effect of Pb on the fracture behavior of Cu-based alloys comparing Bi. Several interesting experiments were carried out and the role of Pb in fracture was well discussed. 

However, the same or similar explanations were repeated over and over. Therefore, proofreading is essential and the manuscript should be dramatically shortened. 

In addition, the results were well discussed at "3. Results and Discussions", but there was also "4. Discussion", in which the points were summarized briefly. What is the significance of section 4?

My scientific concerns are

(1) About thickness reduction : page 16, lines 598-612

(2) About hardness measurement : page 18, lines 679-696

(1)

The authors insisted that the difference inf expand mechanism generated the thickness reduction difference.

However, the Pb-sintered and Bi-sintered layers had different Poisson's ratios in the dynamic test. Thickness change by the elongation is primarily affected by Poisson's ratio. Therefore, the authors should add the discussion about Poisson's ratio.

(2)

From the SEM images, porosity and Pb or Bi at the surface can be avoided. However, how about the inside structure? If there was a large porosity inside below the indentation point, can we detect it? Please add a comment about it.

In addition, the standard deviation of hardness measurement results must be needed.

Other comments;

(a) Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7: "Pb" ==> "Pb sintered layer", "Bi" ==> "Bi sintered layer"

(b) "The average Vickers hardness of the Pb and Bi sintered layers was Hv 87 and Hv 85 before the tensile test." ==> Is it correct?

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing the manuscript and for providing us with valuable comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript according to all the comments to the best of our ability. We have outlined revisions point by point. The detailed responses are attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors provided an interesting study on the highly relevant topic of research on functional composites.  The findings can be helpful for both future study and applied friction surface development. However, the article needs to be revised before publication. Below are my comments.

 1. It is necessary to better characterize the powders used for the synthesis.

2. How were elastic wave velocities measured in bimetal samples?

3. What is the thickness of the tensile specimens?

4. The scale should be shown in Fig. 3.

5. Figure 7 is unclear.

6. What is the fundamental difference between the surface of Fig. 10a and 10b except for color? They look very similar.

7. Check lines 411-415.

8. Why are pores not considered in Fig. 14?

9. Why do not pores grow for the Pb sintered layer, see fig. 23?

10. The authors should to specify the standard deviation for microhardness values.

11. Check lines 693-694.

12. How the authors explain the effect of increasing microhardness after stretching in Bi-sintered layer? How do the authors explain the mechanism of work hardening in this case?

13. It would be correct to obtain the test results for each material separately, including steel. Do the authors have such results?

14. What happens to the contact boundary of two layers under tension? Have the authors analyzed this connection in any way?

15. Upper yield point is normal for many steels. Why did the authors decide that this is the effect of the bimetal?

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing the manuscript and for providing us with valuable comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript according to all the comments to the best of our ability. We have outlined revisions point by point. The detailed responses are attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been well revised based on the comments from the reviewers. Therefore, I only have a few comments.

1) Page 8, 3.3.1 Sintered surface "was confirmed that the can be ..." ==> "the can"?

2) Page 14, "stretching of the steel back and they were interconnected to form many many wide cracks" ==> "many many"?

3) Arrows in the figures should be explained in the caption as well. (Figs 5, 21b, 22b)

Author Response

REVIEWER 1:

 The manuscript has been well revised based on the comments from the reviewers. Therefore, I only have a few comments.

1) Page 8, 3.3.1 Sintered surface "was confirmed that the can be ..." ==> "the can"?

RESPONSE: Thank you for your attention. “the” has been removed from the revised manuscript. 

2) Page 14, "stretching of the steel back and they were interconnected to form many many wide cracks" ==> "many many"?

RESPONSE: Thank you for your attention. “many” has been removed from the revised manuscript. 

3) Arrows in the figures should be explained in the caption as well. (Figs 5, 21b, 22b)

RESPONSE: The explanation of the arrows in the figures has been added to Fig. captions in Figs. 5, 21b, and 22b. The red arrow in Fig. 22b has been removed from the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the authors for their answers. I believe that the manuscript can be allowed for publication in the current version.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing the manuscript and for providing us with valuable comments and suggestions. 

Back to TopTop