Face Bend Property of 7N01-T4 Aluminum Alloy MIG Welded Joint by Using Different Welding Wires

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript presented the properties of 7N01-T4 Aluminium Alloy MIG Welded joint of two different filler materials namely: ER5087 and ER5356. The introduction was built on solid background with a variety of literature. The experimental section is clear and reproducible. It was concluded that the bending resistance of ER5087 welded joint was better than that of ER5356 welded joint. The conclusion was drawn based on the experimental observations from microstructural analysis, microhardness analysis and, face bend properties. The manuscript reads well and will attract both readers and citations. The following are few minor suggestions:

1. Figure 3: Please use the same scale for all the components.
2. A mixture of Fig. Figure. and Figure was used throughout the manuscript. Please use only one format of the above three.
3. The scale bars in figures 9 and 10 are not clear. Please improve them.
4. It would be interesting to study what happened for a different thickness instead of 12 mm. Is there any particular reason for choosing the 12 mm thickness? Additionally, the authors need to provide the reason behind choosing the 70°groove angle.
5. Line 172: form the picture it is not clear that the angle is 180 degree. Is it a typo?
6. Include the angle in figure 2.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review report on the topic ‘Face Bend Property of 7N01-T4 Aluminium Alloy MIG Welded Joint by using Different Welding Wires’. Comments are listed below:

1. Strengthen the abstract section. Add the key conclusion of the works in the last two lines of the abstract section.
2. The clear application of the work should be discussed in the introduction section. Add the novelty of the work in separate section.
3. There are numerous spelling and grammatical errors. Please revise the manuscript thoroughly. Sentences are also not complete.
4. Try to make a bridge between current and previously published work and specify the gap area and objective of the work. Add the specific gap observed from the literature at the end of the introduction section. Refer the major problems associated with dissimilar filler joining: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2020.08.019; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2021.104473.
5. In place of citing all the work at one place discuss the individual work of author and strengthen the introduction section.
6. Describe clearly about the materials and methods section. Add the schematic image of the tested specimen and about the development.
7. Discuss about the selection of groove geometry and welding parameters. Also add the macrograph near to schematic image to ensure the proper sequence of the welding passes.,
8. Discuss the significance of the flexural test in present work in respect of material: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4035764.
9. If possible, add the image of higher magnification with clear technical discussion. The effect of the top and root pass on middle pass should be discussed in detail.
10. Mention the width of HAZ in hardness plot and also relate the hardness variation with micrograph.

The manuscript is written well and can be accepted after following minor corrections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accepted.