Avrami Kinetic-Based Constitutive Relationship for Armco-Type Pure Iron in Hot Deformation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have developed constitutive models of strain-hardening process relating to dynamic recovery (DRV) for Armco-type pure iron before the initiation of dynamic recrystallization .The numerical part of the paper is very good and makes it worth publishing. I however have few comments:
1- The English of the manuscript should be checked and some phrases need to be revised.
2- I suggest not numbering the models in the introduction. Dividing them in paragraphs is enough. In the introduction some of the works on steels is missing. For instance Estrin-Mecking model on duplex stainless steels (Materials & Design, 106, pp.420-427, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A. 2016 Jun 1;47(6):2642-55, Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance, 26(11), pp.5217-5227)
3- The microstructure part needs to be improved. There are few works which explain the recovered microstrcures of steels in hot deformation but they have not been mentioned in the text. Authors are suggested to expand this section of the paper and talk about the hot deformaed microstructure in more details (see for example: Philosophical Magazine. 2017 May 24;97(15):1209-37, Materials & Design. 2017 Feb 5;115:262-75)
4- I suggest comparing the Q values obtained in this work with the Q values reported for steels in the previous works.
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
1. The English of the manuscript should be checked and some phrases need to be revised.
Response: Thank the reviewer for this suggestion. According to the suggestion, some native English researchers have been invited to check the English and revise some necessary phrases of our work. At this time, we think the English quality of this work is sufficient for publication.
2. I suggest not numbering the models in the introduction. Dividing them in paragraphs is enough. In the introduction some of the works on steels is missing. For instance Estrin-Mecking model on duplex stainless steels (Materials & Design, 106, pp.420-427, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A. 2016 Jun 1;47(6):2642-55, Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance, 26(11), pp.5217-5227)
Response: Thank the reviewer to give this suggestion. According to the suggestion, these models have been divided in paragraphs in the introduction part, instead of numbering them. In addition, these suggested works about Estrin-Mecking model on duplex stainless steels have been introduced in the revised manuscript.
3. The microstructure part needs to be improved. There are few works which explain the recovered microstrcures of steels in hot deformation but they have not been mentioned in the text. Authors are suggested to expand this section of the paper and talk about the hot deformaed microstructure in more details (see for example: Philosophical Magazine. 2017 May 24;97(15):1209-37, Materials & Design. 2017 Feb 5;115:262-75)
Response: Thank the reviewer for this suggestion. According to the suggestion, the hot deformed microstructure has been described in more detail way in the revised manuscript. In addition, some necessary works which explain the recovered microstructures of steels in hot deformation have been mentioned in the revised manuscript.
4. I suggest comparing the Q values obtained in this work with the Q values reported for steels in the previous works.
Response: Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. According to the suggestion, the Q value obtained in this work has been compared with these ones reported for steels in previous works, and some necessary discussion has been made in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
I have reviewed the paper. These are my comments.
1) I think the authors should consult a professional editing service to render the English quality sufficient for publication.
2) The abstract, introduction and conclusion should be rewritten to reflect the important findings in the work.
3) The captions (figure and Table) should contain sufficient information; insets, notations and other parameters should be explained in the caption.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
1. I think the authors should consult a professional editing service to render the English quality sufficient for publication.
Response: Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. According to the suggestion, in order to improve the English quality of our work, some native English researchers have been invited for paper revising. At this time, we think the English quality of this work is sufficient for publication.
2. The abstract, introduction and conclusion should be rewritten to reflect the important findings in the work.
Response: Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. According to the suggestion, the abstract, introduction and conclusion parts have been revised to reflect the important findings of this work.
3. The captions (figure and Table) should contain sufficient information; insets, notations and other parameters should be explained in the caption.
Response: Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. All necessary insets and notations have been provided in the captions. In addition, all parameters have been explained in the nomenclature part.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript "Avrami kinetic-based constitutive relationship for 3 Armco-type pure iron in hot deformation" presents full mathematical description of the stress-strain compression curves in wide range of the strain rates and deformation temperatures. The constructed models are based on the dislocation structure evolution equation (in case of DRV) and JMAK-model (in case of DRX). The paper has a significant interest and may be accepted after minor changes accordingly following comments:
The authors used the same value of the apparent activation energy (Q) for all deformation stages. The value of the constant was determined at steady stage. However, the difference in the dynamic recovery and dynamic recrystallization processes should give difference in the values of the apparent activation energy for these processes. The authors should compare the calculated Q value with the values which were obtained by investigators previously to approve the using the same value for description of the DRV and DRX processes.
The number of digits after dot for all constants should be decrease accordingly the error of the determination of these constants. It is hardly that the error of calculation of these constants is less than ±0.00001.
Initial grain size of the Armko-iron should be specified in Materials and experimental part.
Line 101. The compression tests at temperatures of 973 K and 1023 K are hardly may used in the work because the deformation was proceeded in the ferrite phase region and can not be compared with results obtained at the temperatures of 1273 - 1473 K.
Line 180. Dislocation density should be replaced by (σ/a*Gb)2 not by σ2/a*Gb.
Author Response
Reviewer 3:
1. The authors used the same value of the apparent activation energy (Q) for all deformation stages. The value of the constant was determined at steady stage. However, the difference in the dynamic recovery and dynamic recrystallization processes should give difference in the values of the apparent activation energy for these processes. The authors should compare the calculated Q value with the values which were obtained by investigators previously to approve the using the same value for description of the DRV and DRX processes.
Response: Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. Some misunderstanding about activation energy Q was made by the reviewer. In this work, the activation energy Q is only used to describe the dynamic recrystallization processes, rather than dynamic recovery. The Q value obtained in this work has been compared with these ones reported for steels in previous works, and some necessary discussion has been made in the revised manuscript.
2. The number of digits after dot for all constants should be decrease accordingly the error of the determination of these constants. It is hardly that the error of calculation of these constants is less than ±0.00001.
Response: Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. In this work, in order to keep the high accuracy of these models, the error of constants is kept to be less than ±0.00001. It shows no influence on the results of this work, so we still hope to keep the constant error in a high accuracy level. If these are any queries, please don’t hesitate to contact us.
3. Initial grain size of the Armko-iron should be specified in Materials and experimental part.
Response: Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. According to the suggestion, initial grain size of the Armco-type pure iron has been provided in the revised manuscript.
4. The compression tests at temperatures of 973 K and 1023 K are hardly may used in the work because the deformation was proceeded in the ferrite phase region and can not be compared with results obtained at the temperatures of 1273 - 1473 K.
Response: Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. The compression curves at 973 K~1023 K are only used to schematically illustrate the curve evolution with only DRV process. This illustration shows no influence on the results of this work whether it is ferrite phase or austenite phase, it just expresses the curve tendency only referring to DRV process.
5. Dislocation density should be replaced by (σ/a*Gb)2 not by σ2/a*Gb.
Response: Thank the reviewer for pointing our mistake. According to the suggestion, dislocation density expression has been replaced by (σ/a*Gb)2 in the revised manuscript.
