Next Article in Journal
Characterisation of Microparticle Waste from Dental Resin-Based Composites
Next Article in Special Issue
Strain Rate Effect upon Mechanical Behaviour of Hydrogen-Charged Cycled NiTi Shape Memory Alloy
Previous Article in Journal
Influences of Air-Voids on the Performance of 3D Printing Cementitious Materials
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 14
Issue 16
10.3390/ma14164439
Review Report
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

Printed Edition

A printed edition of this Special Issue is available at MDPI Books....
share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Communication
Peer-Review Record

On the Decrease in Transformation Stress in a Bicrystal Cu-Al-Mn Shape-Memory Alloy during Cyclic Compressive Deformation

Materials 2021, 14(16), 4439; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164439
by Tung-Huan Su 1, Nian-Hu Lu 2, Chih-Hsuan Chen 2,3,* and Chuin-Shan Chen 1,3,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Materials 2021, 14(16), 4439; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164439
Submission received: 9 July 2021 / Revised: 4 August 2021 / Accepted: 5 August 2021 / Published: 8 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mechanical Behavior of Shape Memory Alloys: 2022)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

  1. It seems to me that it is worth explaining in the text of the manuscript why it is necessary to prepare bicrystal sample with regions of different crystallite orientations. Why were these grain orientations chosen exactly?
  2. For grains in the top of the sample, with an increase in the number of cycles, the transformation strain (Table 1) decreases. Why?

3. According to Fig. 4 the difference between the top and bottom of the sample according to the studied indicators is large enough. Did you achieve this? Or is it a negative result? How does this difference affect the shape memory effect, will there be cracks in the transition layer during martensitic transformation?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It may be worth adding to the discussion or conclusions section your further directions of research, namely, the influence of grain orientation not only on the arising stresses, but also directly on the shape memory effect.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The revisions made to the text are excellent, and clarify all the unresolved issues present in the original version.

I have one concern though, and suggest removing the added discussion on the Clausius-Clapeyron related explanation for the difference in transformation stress between the two grains (lines 267-274). I do not think this is a viable physical explanation. The Clausius-Clapeyron equation provides information on the slope of the transformation stress vs temperature curve, but cannot be used to infer on the different transformation stress values of the two grains at a given temperature. The first explanation regarding the different Schmidt factors is valid and sufficient. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop