Effect of Single Bevel Groove Geometry on the Impact Strength of Dissimilar Welded Joint of P22 and P91 Steel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Research work is scientifically prominent and current. Writeup is good.

2. Please check that a major portion (@10 out of 26 references) are by the author (Pandey) (self-citations).

3. Same/similar work is recently being presented/published (check references). Please explain explicitly on how it is different from the author's (team's) other publications on this topic.

 

Author Response

Dear Sir,

 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript " Effect of single bevel groove geometry on the impact strength of dissimilar welded joint of P22 and P91 steel " for publication in the " Sustainability" We appreciate the time and effort that the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. We would like to thank the reviewer for the careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful suggestions and comments, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. The thorough review helped immensely in the shaping of the manuscript. The suggestions and comments have been closely followed and revisions have been made accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed your paper: "Effect of single bevel groove geometry on the impact strength of dissimilar welded joint of P22 and P91 steel ".

It presents valuavle and interesting investigations, which fulfill the aims and scope of Sustainability journal. However, I have some questions and comments, which are listed below.

General remarks:

- You have presented 26 references, in which many of them are autocitations. I prospoe to extend this list and add other authors' works.

Introduction:

- Please avoid typical phrases "have good weldability" - better will be "are characterized by good weldability".

- What is the novelty of your work? Only the different filler materials? Please underline this novelty in the Introduction.

Experimental details:

- "The P22 and P91 steel plates of thickness 10 mm were selected for the experiments." what about other dimensions? They should be listed here.

- Table 1 - the source of presented values is unknown. Have you tested these compositions? If yes, please add information about used method. If they were taken from standard/manufacturer data/other paper, please add relevant reference.

- Please list the basic mechanical properties od used steels: yield poind, tensile strength and elongation.

- Table 2 - ptoper unit is "kJ/mm" for heat input. Moreover, you should describe, why these parameters were used. E.g., why heat input values were higher for next beads, than for previous.

Results and Discussion:

- Fig. 3 - In my opinion, better will be to present pictures with the same magnification (the same scale). It allows to compare both materials. Now, the scales are different. Moroever, the picture should be firstly mentioned in text, than it should be presented. Now, the mention is after the picture.

- Why you have not presented macrogaphs of performed specimen? In my opinion, it will be usefull. Moreover, I prospot to show the top view. Both will be proved that used parameterss were good, and allow to avoid imperfections.

- Fig. 7 should be presented after its mention in the text.

- During hardness measurements, the maxiumum hardness in HAZ of P91 steel exceeded 450HV (Fig. 7). What is the criterion of acceptance for hardness of your steel - e.g., ISO 15614 standard presents the maxiumum hardness for different material groups. Have you compared you compared your values to any criterion?

Conclusions:

- I propose to draw the main conclusions in points - it will be more readale. Moreover, please support conclusions with the quantitative results.

 

Author Response

Dear Sir,

 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript " Effect of single bevel groove geometry on the impact strength of dissimilar welded joint of P22 and P91 steel " for publication in the " Sustainability" We appreciate the time and effort that the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. We would like to thank the reviewer for the careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful suggestions and comments, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. The thorough review helped immensely in the shaping of the manuscript. The suggestions and comments have been closely followed and revisions have been made accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf