Formation and Evolution of DS-Type Inclusions in 15-5PH Stainless Steel
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the attached pdf file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript contains the analysis of the inclusions in industrial samples in 15-5 PH stainless production. Thermodynamic calculation based on the analysis results was also provided. The proposed formation mechanism of larger size inclusions may be very useful information for many steelmakers. However, the analysis of samples from the limited charges in the present manuscript can be pointed out to be insufficient to draw generalized conclusions. And the reviewer still believes that alumina or spinel inclusions, which were suggested to desirable by the authors, are comparably harmful in many ways. Since larger inclusions tend to float more easily, it may be more effective to promote their floating and separation, than to inhibit their formation itself. Other minor points are enclosed in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Interesting paper. Major revisions are in order for the authors to address all the points detailed below:
“more stringent requirements have been proposed for the corrosion resistance and fatigue performance of materials used in these applications”: what are these requirements? Clarify.
“Nearly inclusions were selected for characterization from each sample collected 105 at different stages”: how were these inclusions selected? At random?
Thermodynamic calculations must be further detailed in the experimental procedure. It should be nice to explain why thermodynamic calculations can aid in understanding the microstructure evolution in multiple manufacturing techniques. See 10.1016/j.actamat.2019.05.026 and 10.1007/s11661-019-05564-8 and revise.
The thermodynamic results and associated discussion are rather nice.
Can the authors provide a distribution plot of the inclusions during the different processing steps? This could be nice to detail.
Also, are the authors able to quantify the volume fraction of the inclusions? By microscopy or diffraction maybe?
A minor comment on how to control the process to promote or prevent these inclusions to form should be a nice addition to the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript was significantly improved. Minor things were not properly revised.
Key literature to highlight the importance of thermodynamic calculation to understand microstructure evolution and impact on mechanical behavior should be reported. See for example recent papers such as 10.1016/j.actamat.2019.05.026 and 10.1007/s11661-019-05564-8 and revise.
If possible, errors bars should be added to fig 4.
Other then that the paper is quite nice.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript was improved and acceptance is recommended.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. All the suggestions are very important and have guiding significance for my thesis writing and study.
Finally, thanks again for all your suggestions about the article. They are valuable for my article and further research. We are looking forward to learn more knowledge from you.
Sincerely,
Zhong-hua Zhan, Yan-ling Zhang
June 21, 2021
