Computational Simulation by Phase Field: Martensite Transformation Kinetics and Variant Selection under External Fields

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Introduction

please, add some other references, related to Phase field simulation of martensitic-transformation such are

a. Rajeev Ahluwalia , * Jakub Mikula , Robert Laskowski , and Siu Sin Quek, Phase field simulation of martensitic-transformation-induced plasticity in steel, PHYSICAL REVIEW MATERIALS 4, 103607 (2020), DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.4.103607

2. J. Kundin a,, D.Raabe b, H.Emmerich, A phase-field model for incoherent martensitic transformations including plastic accommodation processes in the austenite, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 59(2011)2082–2102, doi:10.1016/j.jmps.2011.07.001

3. Anup Basaka, Valery I. Levitas, Matrix-precipitate interface-induced martensitic transformation within nanoscale phase field approach: Effect of energy and dimensionless interface width, Acta Materialia 189 (2020) 111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2020.02.047

Results

Fig. 2. Comparison of variant morphology for different loading modes. (a) random distri- 188 bution of nucleation sites, (b) 40 time steps for uniaxial tension, (c) 40 time steps for uni- 189 axial compression, and (d) 40 time steps for shearing.

Fig. 5. Variant morphology evolution for different magnetic field intensities. (a) random 223 distribution of nucleation sites, (b) 60 time steps for 0 T magnetic field, (c) 60 time steps 224 for 10 T magnetic field, and (d) 60 time steps for 20 T magnetic field.

Please, explain why did you present result at Fig 2. for 40 time steps and at Fig 5. 60 time steps

What impact on results comparison and discussion have the different chosen time steps?

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I congratulate the authors for conducting the present research.

 

Here go a few of my concerns:

 

I recommend the authors for placing the keywords in alphabetic order.

 

I recommend the authors for not using abbreviation (TRIP) in the keywords

 

The aim sentence (last sentence of the abstract) must be re-written. It does not state clearly what the aim of the study was. Try to start with the following: “The aim of the present study was…”

 

Additionally, the rational of the study, which is immediately before the aim sentence should also be somehow improved.

 

The authors move directly from Results to Conclusions? Where is the Discussion? If it is part of the results it should be separated.

 

This is a computational simulation. This info is not clear neither in the title nor in the abstract.

 

Debate regarding the study strength, limitations, generalization and further research are required in the Discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In present form, after correction , the manuscript could be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author, I have no more concerns. Thank you