Next Article in Journal
Technology Innovation for the Manual Laser Cladding of High-Alloy Tool Steels
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Re on the Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of NbTiZr and TaTiZr Equiatomic Alloys
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Study on the Bonding Mechanism of Copper-Low Carbon Steel for Casting Compounding Process

Metals 2021, 11(11), 1818; https://doi.org/10.3390/met11111818
by Huirong Li, Yueying He, Haichao Zhang, Tao Ma and Yungang Li *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Reviewer 4: Anonymous
Metals 2021, 11(11), 1818; https://doi.org/10.3390/met11111818
Submission received: 9 October 2021 / Revised: 4 November 2021 / Accepted: 9 November 2021 / Published: 12 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Metal Casting, Forming and Heat Treatment)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article refers to idea of Fe-Cu composite material, which benefit both high-strength of Low-Carbon Steel and high electrical conductivity of Copper. Today, industrial production of such hybrid material is in the initial stage of laboratory experiments. The stable transition layer between Fe and Cu is a key to resolve the issue. The article shows the bonding mechanism between Cu and steel during casting compound experiments at 1100℃, 1125℃, 1150℃, 129 1175℃, 1200℃ with 15 min holding time. Its important, as casting compound process of copper and steel, could reflect 360 the real diffusion behavior of Cu in low carbon steel, so the result has a greater significance for real production. The main conclusion is that, relatively low solid-liquid composite temperature is beneficial to the formation of a stable copper-steel transition layer.

 

The article is recommended for publication after minor changes.

 

Abstract:  

  1. 16 “Solid-liquid composite process of copper-steel composite material” – lack of word

Add unit of diffusion coefficients (and l. 465)

 

 

Introduction

  1. 36 “…, since the conductive of copper is a typical skin effect behavior..” Please explain what you mean by this effect

 

  1. 42: “welding diffusion,” – diffusion welding
  2. 103: “would be” into were
  3. 104: “would be” into will be

 

Part 2

There is no description of experimental methods. Please complete.

 

Part 2.2

  1. 123 improve English grammar

consider changing “would be” into past form throughout the manuscript, as activity was already done.

  1. 132-138 English grammar!

 

 

Fig. 2 b – please include bigger photo of the cast connection, or magnified to better show macroscopic quality of connection. – from which temperature this materials derives?

 

  1. 210-211 correct sentence not to repeat itself

 

Part 4.3

  1. 418 – shorten the sentence

 

 

Author Contributions: “To calculate” – into calculation

 

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1. “16 “Solid-liquid composite process of copper-steel composite material” – lack of word Add unit of diffusion coefficients (and l. 465)”

 

Response 1: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have added the unit m2/s.

 

Point 2. “36 “…, since the conductive of copper is a typical skin effect behavior..” Please explain what you mean by this effect”

 

Response 2: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have added the explanation.

 

Point 3. “42: “welding diffusion,” – diffusion welding”

103: “would be” into were

104: “would be” into will be

 

Response 3: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have changed them.

 

Point 4. “There is no description of experimental methods. Please complete.”

 

Response 4: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have added the description of experimental methods.

 

Point 5. “123 improve English grammar

consider changing “would be” into past form throughout the manuscript, as activity was already done.

132-138 English grammar! ”

 

Response 5: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have changed the tense into the past form.

 

Point 6. “Fig. 2 b – please include bigger photo of the cast connection, or magnified to better show macroscopic quality of connection. – from which temperature this materials derives?”

 

Response 6: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have added the cross-section of all the samples.

 

Point 7. “210-211 correct sentence not to repeat itself”

 

Response 7: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we deleted that sentence.

 

Point 8. “418 – shorten the sentence”

 

Response 8: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have shorten the sentence.

 

Point 9. “Author Contributions: “To calculate” – into calculation”

 

Response 9: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have changed it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript under review is an experimental and theoretical study on    on the bonding mechanism of copper-low carbon steel   for casting compounding process . The authors have carried out casting experiments, characterization work and calculations on the   diffusion coefficient of Cu to Fe. It is an interesting work however several questions arise during the reading. Some of them are given below:

Page 3, line 108: Q195 steel:Please replace the Chinese  with  an international standard  regarding steel quality

Page 3, line 113 "Experimental equipment"  "Experiment procedure" may be used instead, it describes better the text under the subtitle. In addition lines 114- 138 must be re written in past tense as it describes experiments already done.

Page 4, line 142  :  arbitrary sample"  The authors must explain why they used this sample and make a clear reference on its origin in the Experimental procedure paragraph.

Page 4, line 138: "glow discharge" Please give a more general description of the method employed for the chemical analysis along with the standard followed. 

Page 4, Fig. 2: The images are blurry, without any magnification bar

Page 4, lines 155-156:  Figure 2b as presented above does not support the statement here.

Page 5 &6, lines 179-219: Line scans /analysis: The scale in the line scans differs both regarding the horizontal axis (distance) and the vertical (counts): The whole text must be revised taking into account the sensitivity of EDS to C. Comparable scales in the diagrams are preferable, especially when comparisons are made.

Page 7, Figure 5: Which particular experiment is represented in this Figure?

Pages 7-8, Fig. 7: The diagrams depicted are interested however it is not clear how they have produced. A more accurate description on the procedure the authors adopted for this series of results is needed here.

 

My suggestion is  Major revision and reconsideration.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

 

Point 1. Page 3, line 108: Q195 steel: Please replace the Chinese  with  an international standard  regarding steel quality

 

Response 1: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have changed the Q195 to ISO: HR2(σs195).

 

Point 2. Page 3, line 113 "Experimental equipment"  "Experiment procedure" may be used instead, it describes better the text under the subtitle. In addition lines 114- 138 must be re written in past tense as it describes experiments already done.

 

Response 2: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have changed "Experimental equipment" to "Experiment procedure", and we have changed the tense into the past form.

 

Point 3. Page 4, line 142  :  arbitrary sample"  The authors must explain why they used this sample and make a clear reference on its origin in the Experimental procedure paragraph.

 

Response 3: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have added the cross-section of all the samples in Fig.2(b).

 

Point 4. Page 4, line 138: "glow discharge" Please give a more general description of the method employed for the chemical analysis along with the standard followed.

 

Response 4: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have added the detection depth range of the glow discharge instrument.

 

Point 5. Page 4, Fig. 2: The images are blurry, without any magnification bar

 

Response 5: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have added new images in Fig.2(b).

 

Point 6. Page 4, lines 155-156:  Figure 2b as presented above does not support the statement here.

 

Response 6: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have added the cross-section of all the samples in Fig.2(b).

 

Point 7. Page 5 &6, lines 179-219: Line scans /analysis: The scale in the line scans differs both regarding the horizontal axis (distance) and the vertical (counts): The whole text must be revised taking into account the sensitivity of EDS to C. Comparable scales in the diagrams are preferable, especially when comparisons are made.

 

Response 7: Thank you for the reviewer’ question, the value of vertical axis (counts) is decided by the detecting time, the counts can reflect the changing trend of element content, but it cannot represent the element’s content. So when we do the line scan, if the test results have shown an obvious characteristic, and it could stabilize in a certain time, we will stop the scan. That is why there are some difference between the different counts.

 

Point 8. Page 7, Figure 5: Which particular experiment is represented in this Figure?

 

Response 8: Thank you for the reviewer’ question, in this study, we not only did line scan of the transition layers, we also did area scan of the surface of the copper-steel interface. With the results of the area scan, we found that the thickness of the transition layer of copper-steel composite materials in this study, could not be determined by the line scan, so we used the glow discharge instrument.

 

 

Point 9. Pages 7-8, Fig. 7: The diagrams depicted are interested however it is not clear how they have produced. A more accurate description on the procedure the authors adopted for this series of results is needed here.

 

Response 9: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have added the description.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

in my opinion, Figure 4 is not easy to read, especially the O and C profiles

experimental methods are not sufficiently described

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Point 1: in my opinion, Figure 4 is not easy to read, especially the O and C profiles, experimental methods are not sufficiently described.

 

Response 1: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, the experimental methods are line scanning of EDS, we have added it. We have deleted the sentence“The sudden increase of C in a local area means that the melting point of the steel in this area will be greatly reduced, and it would accelerate the dissolution of steel at the interface in the molten copper.” in this paragraph, and would discuss it in the discussion part, maybe it is better to show our opinion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The proposed paper is written in a very average manner.

1.English language and

2. constructions of the sentences must be significantly improved.

3. Cable can not be treated as appliance. 

4. Some things in the introduction section need to be better linked to the paper contents.

5. Equipment: intention of use, manufacturer, town, state

6. Figure 2, not cleare abd the data invisible

7. The title  related to the volume of Cu in the figure is not written correct

8. Fig 8; Diffusion coefficient : incorrect  writing form

9. The relation between the fig 8 and table 3  not enough explained

10. Fig 8. The differences between the theor. proc. and test are to large

11. Fig 10: the equation of the direction in the fig is missing

12. For all of journal papers in the references DOI are missing

The paper must be much improved befor further step.

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

 

Point 1 and 2. English language and constructions of the sentences must be significantly improved.

 

Response 1 and 2: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have checked the full paper and corrected grammatical and tense errors

 

Point 3. Cable cannot be treated as appliance.

 

Response 3: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have deleted the cable

 

Point 4. Some things in the introduction section need to be better linked to the paper contents.

 

Response 4: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we found that the paragraph that introduced the diffusion coefficient of Cu in Fe for the temperature under the copper’s melting point was unnecessary, so we deleted that part.

 

Point 5. Equipment: intention of use, manufacturer, town, state

 

Response 5: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind. The equipment is designed by ourselves, and we have added the relative information.

 

Point 6. Figure 2, not cleare abd the data invisible

 

Response 6: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have added the cross-section of all the samples in Fig.2(b).

 

Point 7. The title related to the volume of Cu in the figure is not written correct

 

Response 7: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have change the title that related to the Cu% in the Fig.8.

 

Point 8. Fig 8; Diffusion coefficient : incorrect writing form

 

Response 8: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we always use the unit “cm2/s”, but cm is not the international standard unit, so we changed it to m2/s.

 

Point 9. The relation between the fig 8 and table 3 not enough explained

 

Response 9: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have added the explanation above the table 3.

 

Point 10. Fig 9. The differences between the theor. proc. and test are to large

 

Response 10: Thank you for the reviewer’ question. The large differences between the theorical calculation and the test is mainly due to the holding time. The theorical value is the saturation value at one certain temperature, but the holding time is not enough for Fe to reach its saturation value in the molten copper. That is why there is so big difference between the theorical calculation and the test value.

 

Point 11. Fig 10: the equation of the direction in the fig is missing

 

Response 11: Thank you for the reviewer’ question. At the beginning, we found this result to be problematic too, so we took out all the glow discharge test results, and found that in addition to the influence of Fe dissolved in the molten copper, the segregation of other elements in the steel played a decisive role. And we discussed it in the following part.

 

Point 12. For all of journal papers in the references DOI are missing

 

Response 12: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have added the DOI for every reference.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version has been improved, I would recommend the authors to improve more the English text

Author Response

Point: The revised version has been improved, I would recommend the authors to improve more the English text.

Response: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have made extensive English revisions to the whole manuscript, and marked the revised content.

Reviewer 4 Report

Some improvements were made and answers were given.

Author Response

Point: Some improvements were made and answers were given. English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.

Response: Thank you for the reviewer’ remind, we have made extensive English revisions to the whole manuscript, and marked the revised content.

Back to TopTop