Next Article in Journal
Electrical Conductivity and Dielectric Relaxation in Ag1−xLixNbO3
Next Article in Special Issue
An Integrative Simulation for Mixing Different Polycarbonate Grades with the Same Color: Experimental Analysis and Evaluations
Previous Article in Journal
Tensile Response of As-Cast CoCrFeNi and CoCrFeMnNi High-Entropy Alloys
Previous Article in Special Issue
Numerical Investigation into the Influence of Grain Orientation Distribution on the Local and Global Elastic-Plastic Behaviour of Polycrystalline Nickel-Based Superalloy INC-738 LC
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Micromechanical Effect of Martensite Attributes on Forming Limits of Dual-Phase Steels Investigated by Crystal Plasticity-Based Numerical Simulations

Crystals 2022, 12(2), 155; https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst12020155
by Tarek Hussein 1, Muhammad Umar 1,2,*, Faisal Qayyum 1, Sergey Guk 1 and Ulrich Prahl 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Crystals 2022, 12(2), 155; https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst12020155
Submission received: 20 December 2021 / Revised: 15 January 2022 / Accepted: 17 January 2022 / Published: 21 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Crystal Plasticity (Volume II))

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1- The abstract should be revised and core finding of the research should be added.

2- How the authors verify the simulation results. It should be clearly explained.

3- In Figure 7, it seems that the martensite percentage and its effect on the FLD diagrams is not interpreted clearly.

4- The discussion on the results should be more explained.

Author Response

Detailed document attached in .dox format.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript nicely described the effect of microstructural attributes on forming of dual-phase steels using a numerical simulation. The research is interesting and can be acceptable for the publication after minor revisions following the comments below. 

C1. The purpose and significance of the research are not clear from this title. The title is needed to revise.

C2. Novelty of the works should be clearly focused/mentioned in the abstract.

C3. Also, in this study, the novelty is not clear from the Introduction.

C4. Use of many Figures/data, the MS looks very lengthy or not suitable for reading! Some of the explanations should be concise.

C5. Less important data/Figures should be shifted in the Supporting Information.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I hope that the authors will develop equation 9 further in future articles and present the physical meaning of the coefficients k and n.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: author_response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript can be accepted in the present form

Back to TopTop