Corrosion Resistance of Open Die Forged Austenitic Stainless Steel Samples Prepared with Different Surfaces
, Andrej Razumić and Denis VidovićRound 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting work that should be published once a number of mandatory corrections are addressed.
- The paper ought to be reviewed by a native English speaker, for instance to remove words that do not exist in English such as grinded instead of ground.
- Authors are expert in corrosion resistance but most readers are not. A clear description with images illustrating the three types of corrosion test and a comparison of their outputs is required.
- Tables like 5, 6 and 7 are poorly presented. Vertical writing is not allowed in journals and it is very hard to read. Can they compare in a more pictorial way all those tests, maybe bar diagrams showing a clear average or baseline?
- What is the ANOVA method and what is the meaning of alpha? Never defined.
Author Response
Dear sir/madam
Please, find the response to your comments in the attachment submitted below.
With best regards
Biserka Runje
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Page 1: “Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb, Ivana Lučića 5, 10000 Zagreb”
The country of the authors’ affiliation should be included in the statement.
Page 1: “As a rule, austenitic stainless steels show a positive impact of plastic deformation on corrosion resistance, especially when hot deformed, with protective surface oxide layers.”
This statement is questionable since in the Introduction, the authors state that “the strength characteristics are increasing, and corrosion resistance is decreasing with increasing of deformation degree”.
Page 2: “Several authors described negative changes in corrosion resistance.”
This sentence should be revised to “Several authors described the negative effect of plastic deformation on the corrosion resistance of steels.”
Page 2: “The influence of cold rolling and tensile deformation on the pitting corrosion resistance were investigated on AISI 304 and AISI 430 stainless steels. Results showed a maximum pitting occurrence after 20% cold-rolling reduction or 10% tensile deformation related to the dislocations pile-ups [5].”
I recommend the authors add more reference related to the effect of plastic deformation on the corrosion resistance of stainless steels. For example, the work performed by Hsu et al. (https://doi.org/10.3390/ma10020187) suggested that the plastic deformation increase the stress corrosion cracking tendency of the 304L stainless steel. Another work by Tung et al. (https://doi.org/10.5006/3576) found that cold rolling increase the pitting resistance of 304L due to the formation of passive film.
Page 2: “But, another research work in cold rotary swaging of the same type of metal material has given the opposite results.”
Please revise “But” to “However”.
Page 2: “In this case happened an increased corrosion resistance of the material after plastic deformation [6].”
This sentence should be revised to “In this case, an increase in corrosion resistance of the material after plastic deformation occur [6].”
Page 2: “Austenitic stainless steel 316LN was hot forged and annealed. The results of corrosion resistance testing indicate that the corrosion rate decreases after annealing of forged samples [7].”
I suggest revising this sentence to “Austenitic stainless steel 316LN was hot forged and annealed. The results of corrosion resistance testing indicate that the corrosion rate decreases after annealing of forged samples [7].”
Page 2: “But, another research work in cold rotary swaging of the same type of metal material has given the opposite results.”
Please revise “But” to “However”.
Page 2: “But, the higher amount of lattice defects – dislocations, especially in a case when it is associated with small grains, can also result with a faster corrosion under aggressive conditions [9].”
I recommend revising this sentence to “However, the higher amount of lattice defects, such as dislocations, can also result in a faster corrosion rate under aggressive conditions, especially in the case when the material is associated with small grains [9].”
Page 2: “However, all examined researches and widely available tables with data on material resistance testing were conducted on samples with a carefully prepared surfaces,…”
Please revise this sentence to “However, most of the corrosion resistance testing results in the open literature were conducted on samples with a carefully prepared surfaces,…”
Page 2: “Samples made of austenitic stainless steel 304 (X5 CrNi 18-10) were upset on a hydraulic press.”
The chemical composition of the materials used in this study should be indicated in the manuscript.
Page 2: “Cylindrical hollow samples with an initial length of 40 mm,…”
Please revise “length” to “height”.
Page 4: “The atomic force microscope (AFM) was used to obtain information on the state of the sample surface in the nanometer scale.”
The model/type of the AFM should be added in this sentence.
Page 5: “Electrochemical DC testing was used to test corrosion resistance, using a potentiodynamic polarization measurement.”
The abbreviation “DC” should be spelled out upon first appearance in the abstract.
Page 11: “4. Conclusion”
The statement of conclusion is too long. The conclusions should be presented in bullet points and containing the most important findings in this study.
Figure 1:
I suggest adding a scale bar in the figure.
Figure 7-8, 13-14:
The label of the X-axis is missing.
Table 8:
Please enlarge the scale bars in these figures.
Author Response
Dear sir/madam
Please, find the response to your comments in the attachment submitted below.
With best regards
Biserka Runje
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been improved, there are still a few language flaws but the argument is well supported now.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Good revision. The authors have successfully addressed the reviewer’s comments. The revised manuscript has met the requirement for publication.
Author Response
- English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.
We thank the reviewer for this recommendation. The spelling errors have been corrected.
