On the Efficient Particle Dispersion and Transfer in the Fabrication of SiC-Particle-Reinforced Aluminum Matrix Composite
, Lucia Lattanzi 3, Anders E. W. Jarfors 2,3,*, Jinchuan Zheng 2, Kaikun Wang 1,* and Gegang Yu 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The sequence (workflow) mentioned in lines 100-115 is not conforming to the sequence of methodology 2.1, 2.2, etc. For instance, 1. Water modelling, but section 2.1. is material production …. And so on …
- In 2.1. Material preparation: intended volume fraction of SiCp should be stated here. It is rather mentioned in line 196 in the results part.
- In 2.2 Flow 3D simulations: the volume fraction of SiCp is 1% where that in real experiment is 20%. This is misleading.
- 2.3. Microstructure characterization should be merged with the material preparation (Section 2.1).
- The results in Table 4 and 5 are based on several false hypothesis:
1) L265: particle-particle cohesive force = 5 nN to 15 nN of different ceramic particles of similar size, as reported by Jones et al. [27]. The study in Ref.27 is related to Alumina, limestone, and silica gel particles. The particles of the current study is SiC.
2) Claiming (in Line 287-289) that the torques in water model and the real composite experiment are similar because of close viscosity of water and liquid Al-alloy. However, authors ignore the influence of interparticle friction and the density of about 20% volume fraction of SiC particles (with density 3.2 g/cm3) on the torque.
3) Correspondingly, the calculated shear stress (T_c) in the stator (eq.5) is incorrect.
4) The calculated shear stress in the holes (equation 8) is based on the hypothesis in line 310 that “The Flow-3D simulations approximated the flow velocity θ to be 8.15 m/s”. However, the slurry in simulation is just carrying 1% SiCp as per line 174-175 in contrast to the real experiment (with targeted 20% vol. fraction). Thus, the average velocity is expected to be less than that of simulation.
- The researchers may also be confused about the tensile and shear strength of the material. In line 323 they claimed that Yang et al. [26] calculated the shear strength of the SiC cluster to be in the range of 6.5-19.5 Pa. However, in the original manuscript of Ref,26, the mentioned range represents the tensile strength of SiC clusters not the shear strength.
- Other results in Section 3.4. are fine and clear. However, the redline in the plot (Fig. 9) is to be deleted keeping the point C1_23
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAs stated in the above checklist
Author Response
Please see the attached document
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview report
The research work titled “On the efficient particle dispersion and transfer in the fabrication of Al-SiCp MMCs” was aimed at investigating the process of increasing the dispersion efficiency of SiCp on Al alloy matrix. It is a nice research topic with a significant contribution to knowledge. However, the work lacks coherence in the organization and most details are lacking. So, I would advise that a more detailed presentation of the work be presented for clearer understanding and replicability of the work. The items below are some of the specific corrections to be affected.
1. The abstract was not well articulated to capture the motivation, aim, methodology, result and recommendation. Kindly re-write the abstract to capture these essential features in such a way that anyone who reads it will have clear picture of what was done in the research.
2. Pp.5 Ln 197 – 198: In Table 2, I can see that the SiCp wt.% targeted fraction was fixed at 20%. How did you generate the SiCp wt.% fraction?
3. Describe how Table 6 was generated. The explanation was not enough for the purpose of replication of experiment.
4. I suggest that all the equations should be arranged under materials and method, and not under results and discussion.
5. Kindly give a detailed explanation of all that was done in generating the results presented in the work.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of English is satisfactory.
Author Response
Please see the attached document
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAlthough this topic is certainly interesting, this manuscript in its current form cannot be recommended for publication and requires some refinement and clarification.
1. It is not at all good to give an abbreviation in the title and not even give an explanation in the abstract. It is recommended to change the title, because not everyone will immediately understand it.
2. From the Introduction it is not clear what crystalline modification of silicon carbide is meant.
3. Furthermore, the introduction needs more general information about SiC and SiC crystal (note that this paper is submitted to Crystals) and its important applications in optical devices, nanotechnology and nuclear and space material science. This is important to attract more reader interest and further incentive applications. For some of them, see, for example:
a) Huczko, A., Dąbrowska, A., et al. Silicon carbide nanowires: synthesis and cathodoluminescence. physica status solidi (b), 2009, 246(11‐12), 2806-2808. https://doi.org/10.1002/pssb.200982321
b) Lebedev, A.S., et al. Carbothermal Synthesis, Properties, and Structure of Ultrafine SiC Fibers. Inorg Mater 56, 20–27 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0020168520010094
c) Xu, H.; Li, X.; Tong, Z.; Zhang, B.; Ji, H. Thermal Radiation Shielding and Mechanical Strengthening of Mullite Fiber/SiC Nanowire Aerogels Using In Situ Synthesized SiC Nanowires. Materials 2022, 15, 3522.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15103522
4. Al-SiC may be of interest both for nuclear applications and radiation-resistant coatings with luminescent properties.
5. How perfect are the resulting particles in terms of point defects, and whether their influence on functional properties was assessed?
In general, the manuscript is interesting and can be considered for publication after constructive reflection on the above comments.
Author Response
Please see the attached document
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter successful revision, this paper can be recommended for publication.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Please check typos and clarity of language.
Author Response
Thank you for your time and support. Please see the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comment
The authors investigated SiC particle transfer and dispersion during the fabrication of Al-SiCp MMC. Overall, the manuscript is not well-written and properly organized. Many details are missing some conclusions are not supported by the experimental result. Major revision is needed to make this manuscript publishable. Please, find in what follows specific comments.
Specific comments:
1. Page 2, lines 86-94: the goal of this work and the improvement compared to the state-of-the-art should better explained and detailed.
2. Page 2, lines 122-124: where is this proved?
3. Paragraph 2.2.2: The adopted model should be detailed: equations, boundary conditions, parameters, ect. ect.
4. Page 5, lines 176-186: description of Figure 3 is not clear.
5. Caption of Figure 3 should be explicative.
6. Page 5, lines 187-195: This part is not clear. I may understand that some oxide layers are present on particle surfaces (which need to be proved though), but what does it mean that oxide films encapsulate the clusters?
7. In addition, it was reported introduction that oxide layers increase the wettability, while on Page 5, line 195, the opposite is stated.
8. Page 6, lines 203-210. It is not clear the role of magnesium. All samples contain approximately the same amount of Mg, so why the authors are mentioning it? Moreover, the conclusions made by authors when comparing Mg and La, can be applied when dealing with Ce.
9. Paragraph 3.2.1 is very confusing. Different symbols are used for the same parameter and many values are missing. In addition, it is not clear the adopted calculation procedure.
10. Paragraph 3.2.2. The authors seem to use shear stress and tensile strength as synonyms, which are obviously not. This part should be deeply revised.
11. Figure 5. It is not clear how the authors identified the oxide layers.
12. Figure 5d; 50 micron particles cannot be observed.
13. Figure 6 can be deleted.
14. Page 11, lines 339-340. This statement does not match with the results reported in Table 6.
15. Page 11, lines 343-359. Since the authors did not report any experimental evidence of the oxide layers, oxide role is highly speculative.
16. Figure 7: the regression coefficient is too low to state a linear dependance.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing
Author Response
Thank you for your time and support. Please see the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Line115: Please add information about the materials of the stirrer rotor/stator and the crucible.
- Fig.1: A vertical metallic bar provided with various size holes stands to the right of the stirrer. What is its function to experiments.
- Water model:
Authors claimed that water model is done to mimic the velocity gradient and to calculate the torque required for the Al- experiment. Reason according to line 269: the similarity of density between the water and the molten Al-10Si density (1-1.4 g/cm3 according to Ref.32). According to Fig.3.d in Ref. 32, the molten alloy density is about 2.4 g/cm3, in contrast to what mentioned in the current manuscript. Another issue, in lines 136-38 authors used (light-weight) boron nitride particles as a tracer in water to move freely. However, the particle density (density 2.4-3.5 g/cm3 according to BN structure) significantly deviates from water which influences the mixture velocity and particle sedimentation.
- Fig.3: The four data points are far away from the linearity. The fitting quality is very poor.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageRephrasing is required, particularly in the discussions section.
Author Response
Please refer to the attached document
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript can be accepted in the revised form.
Author Response
Thank you for your time and support.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am still have concern about the accuracy of the provided data. In the first version the tracer particle type was omitted,. In second version, it was BN particles. In the third version, is is wax-based.
The design of experiments and presentation of results must be improved.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate
