Interface Characteristics and Properties of a High-Strength Corrosion-Resistant Stainless Steel Clad Rebar

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript describes experimental efforts regarding the cladding of two stainless steels by metal depositioning and hot rolling. Unfortunately, the manuscript is written as a lab journal (or measurement report) and not so much as a scientific publication: the level of the English language is significantly below average, the results are neither explained properly nor analyzed. Furthermore, the novelty of this work is unclear (at least, not specifically explained).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Interesting research but need for proofreading, many mistakes.

This work aims at the manufacturing of stainless steel cladding or This work aims at the rating manufacturing of stainless steel cladding?

Please explain:  Are the results obtained average values? How many samples, test rods there were? Is a hard zone not like an internal notch? Are there no microcracks? No bending structure is shown. What method was the diffusivity of elements studied? What is the measurement error?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject is quite interesting as it deals with the manufacture of a novel stainless steel clad rebar with a novel technique claiming to lead to both high corrosion resistance and cost savings. The experimentation is well-organized. Adequate information is given on the microstructural characterization of the cladding, especially on the interfacial characterization of the composite (stainless steel/carbon steel) interface and on the mechanical characterization of the cladding.

The major weakness of the paper is mistakes in the use of English (both grammar and syntax), which, although minor, they are abundantly dispersed throughout the manuscript. The major virtue of the paper is the provision of sound and well-described explanations regarding the microstructure formation processes in the interfacial zones (3.3). The work is worthy to be published, provided that the authors respond to the following comments/proposed revisions:

First of all, the authors should tackle with mistakes in the use of English found in the manuscript, like:

-The authors are mixing past and present verb tenses in the same sentence (e.g.196-198, 532-534, etc.)

-Use of the definite article “the” instead of the indefinite article “a” (e.g. lines 394, 722 etc.)

-Unnecessary use of “and” to join dissimilar sentences (of chronological order) making the composite sentence too long and sometimes difficult to follow. Instead, two different sentences should be placed (e.g. lines 184-186, 405-406, 392-394,442-443, 614-616, 212-214, 978-982 etc.)

-Often, the definite article “the” is missing (e.g. lines 400, 758, 759, 904 etc)

- Often, the indefinite article “a” is missing (e.g. lines 190, 443, 520 etc )

-Often, commas instead of full stops are used forming long sentences hard to follow (e.g. lines 519-521, 740-743, 614-616 etc.)

-Wrong past participles (e.g. line 220 etc.)

-Wrong verb tenses (e.g. lines 399, 922 etc.)

-Also, some sentences require revisions in Grammar and/or syntax. E.g. lines 184-186, 192-193, 194-195, 196-199, 204, 220, 223, 355, 399-404, 446, 519-521, 525-526, 628, 724-727 (too long), 729, 745-747, 756-757, 908, 909, 978-982, etc.

To summarize, the manuscript should be thoroughly checked by a fluent English speaker.

Moreover:

-Text referring to figures and tables should precede the respective figures and tables.

-Line 39: The authors should clarify: 2205 was cladded on Cr13? Or two different claddings were manufactured: 2205 on ….. and Cr13 on……?

-Line 223: However, the lower content of Cr and the absence of Ni provide less corrosion resistance than 304. The authors should comment or rephrase.

-Line 335: [14] is not a report.

-Section 2.2.2 should be moved to the Results and Discussion section.

-Fig. 2d: The authors should point at the direction toward the core.

-Lines 394-395 and throughout the text: A space is needed between units and respective numbers.

-Line 417: What is the usual thermal processing of HRB400E and Cr13? The authors should write down and provide relevant references.

-Line 458: “EDS is used to measure carbides” The authors should rephrase.

-Fig. 5: The contrast of C, Si, Cr, Mn maps should be improved.

-Fig. 5a: The stainless steel, transition and carbon steel regions should be pointed at.

-Fig. 6b: Error bars are needed.

-Fig. 6: A reference is needed.

-Line 721: “ …is an order of magnitude of that in stainless steel…” Do the authors mean lower or higher than that in..?

-Line 724: “… the carbon side…” should be replaced by: “the carbon steel side…”

-Lines 727, 749: “The width of martensite…..” should be replaced by “The width of the martensite zone…”

-Line 732: “ can be understood..” A more appropriate verb should be used.

-Lines 748-749: “….taken…”, “…adhered…”: More appropriate verb should be used.

-Line 924: Standard deviation values should accompany the mean tensile property values.

-Table 1: Since the tensile values have already been given in line 924, Table 1 is unnecessary. Instead, a stress-strain diagram should be provided.

-Several references are listed with insufficient bibliographic data: 1-4, 13, 17, 21, 22, 23.

-References 9, 11, 16, 19, 20, 22: “et al” should be replaced by the authors’ names.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your help with my paper, and I benefited a lot
from your advice.
Thank you very much for your detailed guidance on grammar and syntax.
I have made point‐to‐point modifications according to your suggestions.
Please see the attachment for the rest information.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf