Microstructure and Properties of Bulk Ultrafine-Grained Cu1.5Cr0.1Si Alloy through ECAP by Route C and Aging Treatment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article:

“ Microstructure and properties of bulk ultrafine- grained Cu1.5Cr0.1Si alloy through ECAP by route C and aging treatment”  by:  Tingbiao Guo, Xiaoyang Tai, Shiru Wei and Junjie Wang, Zhi Jia and Yutian Ding,

deals with interesting approach the studies of  the mechanical and electrical conductivity properties of Cu1.5Cr0.1Si alloy after equal channel angle pressing (ECAP)  deformation and aging treatment by use scanning electron microscopic,  X-Ray Diffraction and Electron Back-Scattered Diffraction. The authors show that ECAP deformation and aging promote formed {111}<110> and {111}<112> textures, after aging, the fracture mode of the alloy is ductile fracture also appropriately extended the aging time can promote increase of the conductivity of the Cu1.5Cr0.1Si alloy.

I have gone through the manuscript and I recommend it for publication in Crystals for the following reasons:

The paper is scientifically sound and of important interest.

The information presented in the paper is original and comprehensive.

The results and discussion sections were well-written and thorough.

The conclusion is justified by the data.

Although the article is very interesting but before publishing requires a following addition:

what is the order of magnitude of the measurement and calculated errors presented, among others, in Figures 4, 5, 7. This case requires a specific explanation.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: Although the article is very interesting but before publishing requires a following addition:what is the order of magnitude of the measurement and calculated errors presented, among others, in Figures 4, 5, 7. This case requires a specific explanation.

Response 1: Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion.This is very important to us, and we are very sorry for our negligence. The measurement and calculation errors in Figures 4, 5, and 7 is 0.01 and the conductivity measurement error is 0.1%. The corresponding data is marked in red and the revised details can be found in Line 148-153, 172 and 260, inIn addition, We have improved the effect of Figure 6(a), and the revised details can be found in Line 218-219. Thanks again for your suggestions and hope to learn more from you !

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript address aging process of common Cu-Cr-Si alloys and evolution of microstructure and conductivity. Manuscript clearly written and show important results about microstructure and properties of Cu-based alloy during its aging. I have only a single comment. In PXRD part (3.2), authors discuss absolute intensity in the context of crystallisation and aging. I do not think that it is correct. Absolute intensity cannot be a sign for crystallisation or recrystallisation. I suggest to perform analysis with internal standard or perform Rietveld refinement or single-peak analysis. Diffraction lines broadness is also change with treatment. It should be given as well as discussed.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Microstructure and properties of bulk ultrafine-grained Cu1.5Cr0.1Si alloy through ECAP by route C and aging treatment”(crystals-743128). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. We sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published on “Crystals”. Thank you very much for all your help and looking forward to hearing from you soon.

The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Point 1: In PXRD part (3.2), authors discuss absolute intensity in the context of crystallisation and aging. I do not think that it is correct. Absolute intensity cannot be a sign for crystallisation or recrystallisation. I suggest to perform analysis with internal standard or perform Rietveld refinement or single-peak analysis. Diffraction lines broadness is also change with treatment. It should be given as well as discussed.

Response 1: Thanks for the referee’s kind advice.I found the deficiencies in my current work. I will follow your suggestions to improve the scientific research level and get more achievements. Just like what the referee said, we have made minor changes to the XRD part (3.2) and added discussion of changes in diffraction lines broadness. We added this point into our revised manuscript in red and the details can be found in Line 106-119，Page 4. Thanks again for your suggestions and hope to learn more from you !Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely !

Tingbiao Guo

Corresponding author:

Name: Tingbiao Guo

E-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.doc