Unveiling the Strain Rate Sensitivity of G18NiCrMo3-6 CAST Steel in Tension/Compression Asymmetry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.      In paper, why the authors limit the quasi-static and medium strain rate regimes to (0.001, 0.1, 10 [ s¯¹])? How to select these constants?

2.      The author have used the  in equations (6)-(8). Author need explain these two quantities.  

3.      A review should not contain only a listing of works, but it should contain the motivations, foundations for understanding, limitations of the models, logical entanglement and the authors' own critiques on the reviewed works.

4.      Authors must argue how the equations (1)- (2) was obtained, or indicate a bibliographic reference for their original form.

5.      A numbers of abbreviation are used in the paper without using proper terminology to define/describe the physical terms for example ? , etc..

6.      In equation (1)-(2), How to select ?0 and ?1 constants?

7.      After Equation (5), the authors mentioned " the two separate function of f was also given in Eq. 5 As expected, when → 0 ". The authors are recommended to explain why this term is numerically zero.

8.      The conclusion section is more like a summary in the introduction than a real conclusion. Please formulate a substantive critique about the works and open-questions regarding the possible research directions.

9.      The authors are advised to improve the quality of images.

10.  Please highlight how the work advances or increments the field from the present state of knowledge and provide a clear justification for your work. A little comment on the shortcoming.

 

I recommend the paper for publications after application of the above comments.

The level of English language used in this paper is not up to the standards that are required for publication in an international research journal. The authors are advised to perform a substantial revision in this regard.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank your oyour kind critics and suggestions.

We have put here as an attached file our corrections, revison and improvcement our manuscript

Thank you for your attention

Prof Emin BAYRAKTAR

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer comments 

Manuscript ID: applsci-2660218

Title: UNVEILING THE STRAIN RATE SENSITIVITY of G18NiCrMo3-6 CAST STEEL IN TENSION/COMPRESSION ASYMMETRY

Journal: Applied sciences

This manuscript describes the use of tensile and compression tests to unveil the strain rate sensitivity (SRS) of G18NiCrMo36 cast steel material. Also, a pressure and rate dependent constitutive material model on the basis of,Cocks'89 yield locus definition was created by a subroutine (UMAT) file and the material parameters were verified with respect to the experimental data. The paper lies within the scope of the journal, however, prior to publishing; a few minor remarks need to be given attention:

1-      What is the basic idea of the Cocks'89 yield criterion used? What is the main limitations overcome in comparison with other criterions?

2-      Technical drawings of the samples are not clear in Figure 2a

3-      The development of the tangent modulus should be presented in the paper.

4-      Equations presented in figure 8 are not clear and readable “analytical formulations”.

5-      Title of figure 9 should be corrected to ensure accuracy and clarity.

6-      To clearly observe the accuracy of the numerical model, curves in Figure 11 should be presented separately for each strain rate.

7-      More figures for simulation should be added (plastic strain value during and at the end of FEA analysis for tensile test, …).

8-      More details for the numerical model should be added in the manuscript (size of elements, friction coefficient for compression test, …).

9-      Has a Mesh Sensitivity Analysis been conducted by the authors?

10-  Figure 10. (a) : plastic strain value at the end of FEA analysis (SDV1) has the same value in all point of the specimen, authors should explain this point.

11-  Most of the figures are of bad quality, there are pixels around lines, leaving an impression of a “dirty” figures. Most of the figures need to be improved and expand the figures legends and axes to make them more visible and readable.

The reviewer recommends that the author do major revision to the manuscript. Also, the reviewer would recommend that the author proofread the article thoroughly for typos and grammatical errors.

The reviewer would recommend that the author proofread the article thoroughly for typos and grammatical errors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your kind suggestions and critics. We have revised and corrected our manuscript according your critics. We have put here as an attached file our answers and improvement of the section entirely

Thank you for your kind attention to our work

Kind Regardqs

Emin BAYRAKTAR

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All the questions posed by the reviewer have received correct and comprehensive responses from the authors, demonstrating their commitment to improving the manuscript. Considering the thorough and satisfactory revisions made, I recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication.

ok