Influence of Carbide Morphology on the Deformation and Fracture Mechanisms of Spheroidized 14CrMoR Steel
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well written and presents interesting results. The following minor comments are given by the reviewer, whereas answers/discussions should be preferably included in the final/revised version of the paper:
- Abstract: Is generally well written, but may contain more quantitative results if applicable.
- Introduction: A sound overview of other research activities and their output is provided. However, some bullet points clarifying the scientific contribution of this paper should be added at the end.
- Line 87: The unit [mm/s] does not reflect a strain rate. Please change the unit or define this value as deformation rate (or similar wording).
- Figure 3: The quality of the figures may be improved.
Author Response
October 30, 2019 Metals Dear Editor, Thank you very much for considering our manuscript for review. We would like to appreciate the reviewers for their very constructive comments on our work and for providing valuable suggestions to further improve the quality of the article. We have studied the reviewers’ comments very carefully and have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to their comments. We have addressed all the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, as detailed below point by point. The related changes are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. We hope you will find that we’ve addressed all of the reviewers’ comments, and thus accept this article for publication in Materials. Thank you for your time. Yours faithfully, Shifu Wang, Luowei Cao, Zheng Zhang. Reviewers' comments and our response to their comments (in blue): Reviewer #1 The paper is well written and presents interesting results. The following minor comments are given by the reviewer, whereas answers/discussions should be preferably included in the final/revised version of the paper: 1）Abstract: Is generally well written, but may contain more quantitative results if applicable. Our response: We have been correct the abstract of this paper. The related changes are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript (The correct detail is shown below). Abstract: The influence of carbide morphology on deformation and fracture behavior of as-received and complete spheroidization 14Cr1MoR steel is investigated by in-situ scanning electron microscope (SEM) under tension testing. During spheroidization damage, the carbide morphology changed from the original lamellar cementite present in pearlite, to granular M23C6 carbide which is concentrated along the ferrite grain boundaries. The yield strength and tensile strength of 14Cr1MoR steel decrease as the increased of spheroidization damage degrees. In in-situ observations revealed that; the deformation and crack initiation started from the ferrite matrix in both as-received and completely spheroidization damaged 14Cr1MoR steel samples. However, the extension of slip bands and crack propagation behavior of both samples are different during the in-situ tensile process, which can be ascribed to the difference in carbide morphology. In the as-received 14Cr1MoR steel sample, hard and brittle lamellar pearlite resulted in high strength ferrite/ pearlite boundaries, which inhibited the movement of slip bands. With further increase of deformation, the stress concentration at crack tip resulted in the emergence and propagation of cracks along the ferrite/pearlite boundaries. In the case of completely spheroidized 14Cr1MoR steel sample, slip bands bypassed the grain boundary carbide and continuously expanded into the neighboring ferrite grain. In addition, micro-voids and fracture of grain boundary carbides have been observed due to the large stress concentration at the front of crack tip. Then, the micro-voids connected with the main crack to complete crack propagation behavior. The morphological changes of carbides deteriorated the mechanical properties and altered the fracture behavior of 14Cr1MoR steel. It is worth noting that the fracture surface morphology of 14Cr1MoR steel changed from a combination of lamellar fracture and dimples morphology to a completely dimples dominated morphology after spherorization. 2）Introduction: A sound overview of other research activities and their output is provided. However, some bullet points clarifying the scientific contribution of this paper should be added at the end. Our response: We have been correct the introduction and add the scientific contribution of this paper. The related changes are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript (The correct detail is shown below). One should note that pearlite spheroidization is an inevitable process in 14Cr1MoR steel during long term service at high temperatures. Many researches have been carried out focused on the microstructure evolution and property changes of pearlite spheroidization damage [2–10]. Since the microstructure is comprised of ferrite and carbides after long-term service instead of the initial microstructure of ferrite and pearlite, the deformation and fracture mechanisms are supposed to be different. Unfortunately, few investigations concerning this have been reported. Compared with conventional static testing, in-situ microstructural observations during mechanical testing provide a better understanding of mechanical behavior, and present real time images with intuitional deformation and fracture process. Therefore, in-situ scanning electron microscopy is widely carried out to understand the overall deformation and fracture behavior of different materials [11-15]. Hence, in this paper the in-situ tensile testing has been utilized to demonstrate the real time morphological changes, and demonstrate the influence of carbide morphology on fracture process, deformation behavior and tensile properties of 14CrMoR steel after spheroidized damage. Herein, spheroidization damaged 14Cr1MoR steel samples are obtained by accelerating the spheroidization experiment. SEM and TEM are carried out to analyze the morphological evolution of carbides during spheroidization process. 3）Line 87: The unit [mm/s] does not reflect a strain rate. Please change the unit or define this value as deformation rate (or similar wording). Our response: We have been used “deformation rate” changed the “strain rate” in the paper, thanks the reviewer give a good suggestion. 4）Figure 3: The quality of the figures may be improved. Our response: Sorry, this is my fault; I have corrected the figure in the paper. The correct Figure is shown below. (Fig.3) Fig.3 The microstructure of the as-received 14Cr1MoR steel: (a) SEM and b) TEM image, where the inset in b) shows the SAED pattern of M23C6 phase.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments:
In this research the effect of carbide morphology and microstructure on deformation and fracture behavior of 14Cr1MoR steel was examined by in-situ SEM observations during tensile loading. For that purpose the complete spheroidization 14Cr1MoR steel was compared to as-received steel. This work is original and the topic is interesting to the readers of Metals. The manuscript is well organized and easy to read. Therefore, I recommend to publish this contribution in the Metal after minor revision as explained below.
More specific comments:
Introduction
(1) The objectives of this research should be defined in more a systematic way (more question oriented).
(2) Page 1, line 43: Fe3C should be changed to Fe3C (3 should be subscript).
(3) Page 2, line 60: “SEM and TEM are carried out” should be changed to “SEM and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) are carried out”.
(4) More updated (2016-2019) relevant articles should be cite.
Materials and experimental procedures:
(5) Page 2, lines 67-68: It could be useful to present the chemical composition of the 14Cr1MoR plate received from the manufacturer in a Table.
(6) You should provide more information concerning the experimental methods (ARL-4460 direct-reading spectrometer, SEM, TEM, and the tension testing). Please address the error associated with each method and measurements. You need to explain how the experimental instruments were calibrated before the measurements and what kind of calibration samples were used in each method.
(7) According to what standard the tensile specimens were produced? According to what standard the tensile tests were performed?
(8) Page 3, line 68: You need to change “and Fe Bal, The chemical composition” to “and Fe Bal. The chemical composition”
(9) Page 3, line 84: You need to change “0.2mm” to “0.2 mm” (add a space).
(10) Page 3, line 85: You need to change “Fig.2” to “Fig. 2” (add a space).
(11) Page 3, line 87: You need to change “0.001mm/s” to “0.001 mm/s” (add a space).
(12) Page 3, line 89: You need to change “Figure 2. The geometry and dimensions of tensile specimen, which has been used for in-situ SEM 89 observations.” to “Figure 2. The geometry and dimensions (in mm) of tensile specimen, which has been used for in-situ SEM observations.”
Results and discussion
(13) A Table should be added with the ARL-4460 direct-reading spectrometer results (composition of the 14Cr1MoR steel plate).
(14) Page 3, line 102: You need to change “Fig.4” to “Fig. 4” (add a space).
(15) Page 5, line 154: You need to change “590N” to “590 N” (add a space).
(16) Page 7, line 164: You need to change “(g) 730N; and (h) 720N.” to “(g) 730 N; and (h) 720 N.” (add a space).
(17) Page 6 line 170: You need to change “600N” to “600 N” (add a space).
(18) Page 7, line 180: You need to change “(f) 660N” to “(f) 600 N” (add a space).
Author Response
October 31, 2019
Metals
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for considering our manuscript for review. We would like to appreciate the reviewers for their very constructive comments on our work and for providing valuable suggestions to further improve the quality of the article. We have studied the reviewers’ comments very carefully and have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to their comments. We have addressed all the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, as detailed below point by point. The related changes are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.
We hope you will find that we’ve addressed all of the reviewers’ comments, and thus accept this article for publication in Materials.
Thank you for your time.
Yours faithfully,
Shifu Wang, Luowei Cao, Zheng Zhang.
Reviewers' comments and our response to their comments (in blue):
Reviewer #2
Influence of Carbide Morphology on Deformation 2 and Fracture Behavior of Spheroidized 14CrMoR Steel
General comments:
In this research the effect of carbide morphology and microstructure on deformation and fracture behavior of 14Cr1MoR steel was examined by in-situ SEM observations during tensile loading. For that purpose the complete spheroidization 14Cr1MoR steel was compared to as-received steel. This work is original and the topic is interesting to the readers of Metals. The manuscript is well organized and easy to read. Therefore, I recommend to publish this contribution in the Metal after minor revision as explained below.
More specific comments:
Introduction
(1) The objectives of this research should be defined in more a systematic way (more question oriented).
Our response:
We have been correct the introduction and add the scientific contribution of this
paper. The related changes are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript (The
correct detail is shown below).
One should note that pearlite spheroidization is an inevitable process in 14Cr1MoR steel during long term operation at high temperatures. Therefore a large number of studies have focused on the microstructural evolution and property alteration of pearlite spheroidization damage [2–10]. However, the long-term service operation alters the initial ferrite/pearlite microstructure into ferrite/carbides microstructure, which significantly influences the deformation and fracture mechanisms. Unfortunately, few investigations concerning this have been reported.
Compared with conventional static testing, in-situ microstructural observations during mechanical testing provide a better understanding of mechanical behavior, and present real-time images with intuitional deformation and fracture process. Therefore, in-situ scanning electron microscopy is widely carried out to understand the overall deformation and fracture behavior of different materials [11-15].
Herein, in-situ tensile testing has been utilized to demonstrate the real-time morphological changes and demonstrate investigate the influence of carbide morphology on fracture process, and deformation behavior of 14CrMoR steel after spheroidization damage. The spheroidization damaged 14Cr1MoR steel samples are obtained by accelerating the spheroidization experiment. SEM and TEM are carried out to analyze the morphological evolution of carbides during spheroidization process.
(2) Page 1, line 43: Fe3C should be changed to Fe3C (3 should be subscript).
Our response:
We have been used “Fe3C ”change “Fe3C” in the revise paper, thanks the reviewer give a good suggestion.
(3) Page 2, line 60: “SEM and TEM are carried out” should be changed to “SEM and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) are carried out”.
Our response:
We have been used “SEM and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) are carried out” change “SEM and TEM are carried out” in the revise paper, thanks the reviewer give a good suggestion.
(4) More updated (2016-2019) relevant articles should be cite.
Our response:
Dear reviewer, we have been cited some updated relevant articles in my revise paper, thanks the reviewer give a good suggestion.
Materials and experimental procedures:
(5) Page 2, lines 67-68: It could be useful to present the chemical composition of the 14Cr1MoR plate received from the manufacturer in a Table.
Our response:
We have been added a Table1 shown the chemical composition (wt. %) of 14Cr1MoR steel tested by ARL-4460 direct-reading spectrometer.
Table 1 Chemical composition (wt. %) of 14Cr1MoR steel
|
Elements |
C |
Ni |
Mn |
Cr |
Mo |
Fe |
|
Composition (wt%) |
0.16 |
0.022 |
0.48 |
1.2 |
0.47 |
Bal |
(6) You should provide more information concerning the experimental methods (ARL-4460 direct-reading spectrometer, SEM, TEM, and the tension testing). Please address the error associated with each method and measurements. You need to explain how the experimental instruments were calibrated before the measurements and what kind of calibration samples were used in each method.
Our response:
Dear reviewer, I am very sorry for miss error associated with each method and measurements in my paper. I am interpreting it as follow: For the ARL-4460 direct-reading spectrometer which was used to test chemical compositions of 14Cr1MoR steel, this experiment finished by Central Iron & Steel Research Institute of China (An authoritative testing organization). SEM and TEM were used for observation the morphology of sample, so they no need address the error. In-situ tensile test was finished in Tsinghua university with the micro static-dynamic testing machine (Shimadzu, Japan), they have specially-assigned person to operation and maintenance equipment. Before I start my experiment they have been finished equipment inspection.
(7) According to what standard the tensile specimens were produced? According to what standard the tensile tests were performed?
Our response:
As restricted by the maximum load and clamps of device, the samples we used in tension and in-situ tension are not standard sample. The role of notch on the sample of in-situ tension is for observe the crack initial easily during the in-situ tension process.
(8) Page 3, line 68: You need to change “and Fe Bal, The chemical composition” to “and Fe Bal. The chemical composition”
Our response:
We have been changed paper as the suggestion in the revise paper, thanks the reviewer give a good suggestion.
(9) Page 3, line 84: You need to change “0.2mm” to “0.2 mm” (add a space).
Our response:
We have been changed in the revise paper, thanks the reviewer give a good suggestion.
(10) Page 3, line 85: You need to change “Fig.2” to “Fig. 2” (add a space).
Our response:
We have been changed paper as the suggestion in the revise paper, thanks the reviewer give a good suggestion.
(11) Page 3, line 87: You need to change “0.001mm/s” to “0.001 mm/s” (add a space).
Our response:
We have been changed paper as the suggestion in the revise paper, thanks the reviewer give a good suggestion.
(12) Page 3, line 89: You need to change “Figure 2. The geometry and dimensions of tensile specimen, which has been used for in-situ SEM 89 observations.” to “Figure 2. The geometry and dimensions (in mm) of tensile specimen, which has been used for in-situ SEM observations.”
Our response:
We have been changed as the suggestion in the revise paper, thanks the reviewer give a good suggestion.
Results and discussion
(13) A Table should be added with the ARL-4460 direct-reading spectrometer results (composition of the 14Cr1MoR steel plate).
Our response:
We have been added a Table1 shown the chemical composition (wt. %) of 14Cr1MoR steel tested by ARL-4460 direct-reading spectrometer.
Table 1 Chemical composition (wt. %) of 14Cr1MoR steel
|
Elements |
C |
Ni |
Mn |
Cr |
Mo |
Fe |
|
Composition (wt%) |
0.16 |
0.022 |
0.48 |
1.2 |
0.47 |
Bal |
(14) Page 3, line 102: You need to change “Fig.4” to “Fig. 4” (add a space).
Our response:
We have been changed paper as the suggestion in the revise paper, thanks the reviewer give a good suggestion.
(15) Page 5, line 154: You need to change “590N” to “590 N” (add a space).
Our response:
We have been changed paper as the suggestion in the revise paper, thanks the reviewer give a good suggestion.
(16) Page 7, line 164: You need to change “(g) 730N; and (h) 720N.” to “(g) 730 N; and (h) 720 N.” (add a space).
Our response:
We have been changed paper as the suggestion in the revise paper, thanks the reviewer give a good suggestion.
(17) Page 6 line 170: You need to change “600N” to “600 N” (add a space).
Our response:
We have been changed paper as the suggestion in the revise paper, thanks the reviewer give a good suggestion.
(18) Page 7, line 180: You need to change “(f) 660N” to “(f) 600 N” (add a space).
Our response:
We have been changed paper as the suggestion in the revise paper, thanks the reviewer give a good suggestion.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
See the attached PDF titled "Comments and Suggestions for Authors".
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
October 31, 2019
Metals
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for considering our manuscript for review. We would like to appreciate the reviewers for their very constructive comments on our work and for providing valuable suggestions to further improve the quality of the article. We have studied the reviewers’ comments very carefully and have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to their comments. We have addressed all the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, as detailed below point by point. The related changes are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.
We hope you will find that we’ve addressed all of the reviewers’ comments, and thus accept this article for publication in Materials.
Thank you for your time.
Yours faithfully,
Shifu Wang, Luowei Cao, Zheng Zhang.
Reviewers' comments and our response to their comments (in blue):
Reviewer #3
This manuscript deals with an interesting topic but it contains several weaknesses. In this present form the manuscript is far from being acceptable for publication.
1) The reviews does not understand why the reference 24“Nieto A, Boesl B, Agarwal A. Multi-scale intrinsic deformation mechanisms of 3D graphene foam[J].Carbon, 2015,85:299-308”is cited in this work.
Our response:
Dear reviewer, with your suggestion, I read this paper carefully. I found this reference really irrelevant with my paper; this is my negligence for my work. I am very sorry for this mistake, and I have been correct this mistake in my paper.
2) The study is concentrated in the observation of microstructure evolution, micro-mechanisms of crack propagation and fracture morphology. Note that“in-situ tensile characterization”was done using U-shaped notched specimens. How many specimens were tested? Note that scatter in the results, among several identical specimens, is quite usual when the specimens are noted.
Our response:
Thank you for the suggestion of review. Among several identical specimens, it is really easy to obtain usual result when the specimens are noted. For well observation and determine experimental accuracy in this study, we adopted following methods: firstly, we send the samples to Central Iron & Steel Research Institute of China, which have well method to machining notch, can well decrease the effect of notch. Secondly, during in-situ tensile two samples were used for each parameter, to accuracy the experimental results. During the in-situ tensile experiment, the two samples in each parameter obtain same deformation behavior, crack initiation site, crack propagation behavior, and fracture morphology.
3) Additionally, the following statement“the yield strength and tensile strength of completely spherodized 14Cr1MoR steel have been significantly decreased, whereas the toughness increased”is not right.
Suggestion: Try to use un-notched tensile specimens and then show the load-displacement curves.
Our response:
Thank you for the suggestion of review, during those days we have addition the tensile properties test by un-notched tensile specimens. The geometry and dimensions of tensile samples as shown in Fig. 2, the equipment Instron 8801 was used, and three samples were test in each parameter. Fig. 7a) is the load-displacement curves of spheroidized damage samples.
Fig.2 The geometry and dimensions of tensile samples
3) Extensive English edits are required along the whole manuscripts. In order to contribute to scientific revision/rewriting of present manuscript, the review suggests that, first of all, we look at some of CONCLUSIONS that were drawn by the authors:
“1. Under tensile load, the deformation and crack initiation started in the ferrite matrix in both as-received and completely spheroidized 14Cr1MoR steel sample.
Hard and brittle lamellar pearlite resulted in high-strength ferrite/pearlite interface, which inhibited the movement of slip bands. The stress concentration on crack tip cracked the ferrite/pearlite interface, and facilitated cracks to propagation along the ferrite/pearlite interfaces. In the case of completely spheroidized 14Cr1MoR steel, the slip bands are no longer interrupted at ferrite grain boundaries, which mean that the slip bands bypass the grain boundaries carbides and traverse through the ferrite boundaries. Therefore, the dislocation of ferrite is easier than pearlite. Moreover, micro-cracks have been formed by coalescences of micro-voids and fracture of grain boundary carbides, which have been connected with the main crack and completed the crack propagation. The carbides morphology of completely spheroidized 14Cr1MoR steel facilitated the dislocation movement and crack propagation, which led to inferior mechanical properties. The fracture morphology of as-received 14Cr1MoR steel changed from the lamellar/dimples morphology to dimples dominant morphology after spheroidization damage.”
The conclusions need to be more clear to the readers. Note that the title of this paper mensions “Deformation and Fracture Behavior”but in fact the work consists essentially in observation of carbide morphology, crack initial and crack path i.e. growth and propagation, observed by SEM and also TEM.
Our response:
Dear reviewer, I have been done extensive English edits along the whole manuscripts and edited by an editor of MogoEdit again, the detail as shown in the revise manuscript.
4) It would be important to include a comparison between the macro mechanical properties of as-received and the spherodized material. For engineering applications of the 14CrMoR Steel in this aspect is crucial.
Our response:
Dear reviewer, in my revise manuscript has added load-displacement curves of un-notch and the HRC hardness test. The results show that: the yield strength and tensile strength decrease with increased of spheroidization damage degree (i.e. the increased of aging time) as shown in Fig.7a). The HRC hardness of the samples displays the same tendency as yield strength and tensile strength as shown in Fig. 7b).
Fig. 6 Mechanical properties of spheroidized damaged 14Cr1MoR steel samples: a) load-displacement curves and b) HRC hardness.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
My comments are provided in the attached PDF titled "Comments to the Authors (2nd round)".
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
November 6, 2019
Metals
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for considering our manuscript for review. We would like to appreciate the reviewers for their very constructive comments on our work and for providing valuable suggestions to further improve the quality of the article. We have studied the reviewers’ comments very carefully and have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to their comments. We have addressed all the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, as detailed below point by point. The related changes are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.
We hope you will find that we’ve addressed all of the reviewers’ comments, and thus accept this article for publication in Materials.
Thank you for your time.
Yours faithfully,
Shifu Wang, Luowei Cao, Zheng Zhang.
Reviewers' comments and our response to their comments (in blue):
2nd round Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have replied to all issues raised by the reviewers and this revised version is much better compared to the first one. For example, comparison between the macro mechanical properties of the as-received and the spheroidized material is now presented and then the authors now do not write that “the toughness increased”, which as a wrong conclusion at the first version.
1 However, at line 91, the authors have now included the following sentence: “The Instron 8801 tensile testing machine was used to assess tensile properties. The geometry of sample is shown in Fig. 2.” But, the authors must mention the test standard that was used for carrying out the tensile tests (whatever it was: Chinese GB, or ISO, EN, ASTM, …). The strain rate must be mentioned. Note that Instron 8801 is a servohydraulic testin system that allows many types of dynamic or static mechanical tests, not only tensile tests, and therefore it should be named “Instron 8801 testing machine”. Later on, Figure 7 appears without be mentioned in the text. Its caption is simply:
Our response:
We have been added “The Instron 8801 testing machine was used to assess tensile properties with test standard of GB/T228.1-2010. The geometry of sample is shown in Fig. 2. The strain rate was set as 1mm/min. The HRC hardness was tested by HR5-150 Rockwell hardness tester.”in the paper. Thank you the good suggestion of reviewer.
2 Figure 7. Mechanical properties of spheroidized damaged 14Cr1MoR steel samples: a) load- displacement
curves and b) HRC hardness. The caption of Figure 7 is not fully correct; the curves are not all of “spheroidized damaged” 14Cr1MoR steel samples because the “as-received” data is also shown in the figure. Additionally, there is another problem with this new Figure 7.
Our response:
We have been changed Fig.7 as “Mechanical properties of 14Cr1MoR steel samples after different aging time at 680°C: a) load-displacement curves and b) HRC hardness.”
3 It is very important that graphs of stress versusstrain obtained from a tensile test are rigorous, especially if they are published worldwide in a journal. And thegraphs of stress versus strain are not fully correct. The slope of the elastic region is too low!
The Young’s modulus E of the steel is given by the slope of the line OO’ (see Figure in the next page). In order to calculate the slope of OO’, we may consider two points in the line OO’: point P and another point at the intersection of line OO’ with the horizontal axis. Then: Note that 20 GPa is much lower than the steel Young’s modulus, which must be of the order of 200 – 215 GPa
Our response:
Thank you the reviewer point out the error of stress versus strain in my paper, which is very helpful for our work. We do the tensile test again and get the new stress versus strain as shown in the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed all weak points mentioned by the reviewer. They seem to have an insufficient knowledge of English technical terminology, and therefore sometimes they do not use the correct terms.
For example, the following corrections are still needed:
Line 91: instead of “The strain rate was set as 1mm/min”, it should be: “The crosshead displacement rate was set as 1mm/min”.
Lines 193-194 (Caption of Fig.8): instead of “a) load-displacement curves”, it should be: “a) stress-strain curves”.
After corrections, the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
November 10, 2019 Metals Dear Editor, Thank you very much for considering our manuscript for review. We would like to appreciate the reviewers for their very constructive comments on our work and for providing valuable suggestions to further improve the quality of the article. We have studied the reviewers’ comments very carefully and have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to their comments. We have addressed all the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, as detailed below point by point. The related changes are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. We hope you will find that we’ve addressed all of the reviewers’ comments, and thus accept this article for publication in Materials. Thank you for your time. Yours faithfully, Shifu Wang, Luowei Cao, Zheng Zhang. Reviewers' comments and our response to their comments (in blue): The authors have addressed all weak points mentioned by the reviewer. They seem to have an insufficient knowledge of English technical terminology, and therefore sometimes they do not use the correct terms. For example, the following corrections are still needed: Line 91: instead of “The strain rate was set as 1mm/min”, it should be: “The crosshead displacement rate was set as 1mm/min”. Lines 193-194 (Caption of Fig.8): instead of “a) load-displacement curves”, it should be: “a) stress-strain curves”. After corrections, the manuscript can be accepted for publication. Our response: We have been correct the paper as the suggestion of reviewer.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
