Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Lines 80-88 and 93-95, no commas at the end.

Lines 87 and 98, no dots at the end.

Table 2, whether the given hardness is the result of one measurement or the average of several measurements.

Figures 4 and 5. Incomprehensible marking of the chilling depth area. Now is not visible the chilling depth area.

Figures 6 and 7. Please indicate the place of porosity with an arrow. Now they are barely visible.

Formulas 1 and 2. Are these relationships worked out by the authors in [10] or by another author?

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. All were incorporated into the text. The answers are in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The issue of cast iron smelting without pig iron in the charge is very important for scientific and application reasons. Especially in the current market situation.

The article presents the results of tests on cast iron GJL 250 obtained with different proportions of pig iron and steel scrap.

Comments:

-        Please explain why less carburizer was introduced in Melt no. 5 and 6 than in melt no.  1, 2 and 3 (Table 1), where pig iron and steel scrap were used.

-        What carburizer was used. Carburizers can be nitrogen carriers.

-        In melt no. 5 and 6, 0.5% of the inoculant was introduced, and in melt no.  1-4, 0.2%, which affects the properties and structure of the cast iron and makes comparison impossible. The tests should be carried out under the same or similar conditions.

-        Melt no. 4 significantly differs in the content of C and Si from the others and should be repeated.

-        In table 2, there are no clear relationships between the content of Ti and HB (Melt no. 1 and 3).

-        The graphite shown in Fig. 8 is very indistinct. Perhaps the microstructures were poorly made.

-        The introduction of Ti to cast iron will limit its subsequent use as circulating scrap.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. All were incorporated into the text. The answers are in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

(1) Is it possible to disclose the compositions of scrap and return materials so the final compositions given in Table 2 can be checked?

(2) The quality of micrographs given in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 should be improved.

(3) In Page 6, how the pearlite exists without the presence of cementite or the cementite means something else? 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. All were incorporated into the text. The answers are in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No comments.