The Evolution of Microstructure for Carburizing and Quenching 17CrNiMo6 Steel: Forecasting and Experimentation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper investigates the microstructure of the carburizing and quenching 17CrNiMo6 steel experimentally and forecasts it. A comparison between the experimental results and forecasting results were constructed. The author should follow the journal guide for authors regarding the format of the manuscript. The number of each line should be added. The present paper is interesting, however, to be accepted for publication the following comments need to be addressed.

-          Major English changes are required in the revised manuscript, please check it carefully.

For example, not limited, is duffused, you mean here is diffused.

Title

For me the title is not clear, I recommend changing it. You can use this one, but not limited, the evolution of microstructure for carburizing and quenching 17CrNiMo6 steel: forecasting and experimentation

Abstract

The abstract needs to be modified

-          The abbreviation of CAE should be added

-          The abstract should have the aim of the work including the novelty statement, brief of the methodology, and the principal results. In addition, the author stated that “The results of the CAE forecast microstructure evolution are consistent with the experiment.” What are the values of error? At which content the forecasted microstructure is different than the experimental one?

Introduction

-          The introduction section needs to be improved. the introduction should be expanded. Moreover, the knowledge gap should be well addressed, then the aims for this work must be added. Why is this work needed? More related articles should be analyzed.

Experimental method

-          What is the meaning of MSC.Marc??

-          The specification of the used program should be added.

-          The procedures for metallographic and phase analysis should be added including the samples preparations.

Experimental Procedure of simulation

-          The authors stated that “According to the standard, the effective hardening depth of 17CrNiMo6 steel is about 3.05mm.” it is recommended to mention here the standard. In addition, the errors value should be added to 3.05mm. I mean here 3.05±???

-          Figure 5 needs to be improved; the quality should be improved.

-          Figure 19 needs to be corrected; the legend needs to be changed.

-          I think it is better to calculate the errors between the forecasted and experiential values, these errors values give more indication at which content they are in consistent. These values can be added to the abstract.

.

Author Response

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Yuanzhao Chu et. al., elaborated the manuscript titled “The evolution of microstructure forecast and test for carbu-rizing and quenching 17CrNiMo6 steel”. Overall, the template provided by the publisher should be rigorously reviewed by authors and English grammar should be checked (example: “ duffused into the steel surface by the carburizing heatrentmduffused into the steel surface by the carburizing heatrentmentent”. Also the results are to briefly presented, lacking (or insufficiently described) reference to other papers or the parameter, conditions and methods used.

The following major corrections should be considered:

 -          Affiliation should include the department (please see template);

-          In the abstract, abbreviations should be mentioned (i.e., CAE); Authors are limited to an abstract containing 200 words, however authors could mention here the most notable experimental results;

-          Table 1 is expressed in wt. % or mole %? Authors should include this information and errors. How the precise composition of the “sample” was measured? Or was based on technical data sheet?

-          The introduction is not comprehensive enough, lacking reference data reported by other researching groups;

-          The manufacturer, city and country, applied commercially available software, materials and methods should be included;

-          Please add error bars in figure 2.  Please describe in methods and materials section the method applied for measuring the thermal conductivity. Authors should explain the inflection point near 700 degrees in both figure 3 and 4?

-          Increase the contrast/scale bar in figure 5; Each figure should be referenced as 5.a,b etc. and included in the figure caption;

-          Table 3 sets distribution should be table 2;

-          Table 3 expressing fitting function should contain data with less numbers after decimal point; how many data were considered for calculating the standard error? Available also for table 4, 5, 6, 7.

-          In figure 7 and 8, authors should explain the reason for the inflection point.

-          Authors should extensively present the simulation results in figures 10-12. Why ? In correlation with..? As expected or not? Comparable to references [xyz]?;

-          The graphs related to simulations and presented in materials and methods should be included in the results section since there are presented as Results and not theoretical principle;

-          Figure 14 should be expressed in log scale, and in mm.

-          Figure 15, please add scale bar and magnification information. What method/instrument (manufacturer etc.) was used? Metalloscope?

-          Increase the scale bar in fig 16. Figure caption should be more comprehensive;

-          Relating to figure 17, please add information regarding the XRD used instrument, ICDD cards etc.

-          Authors’ state: “The chart shows that there are seven peaks in the every depth of the workpiece.” Please, add figure no.

-          Figure 19, please remove from legend the additional symbols; Consider editing the figure to log scale;

-          Authors should add in the conclusion section the importance of their findings and their further applicability. Otherwise, this section is well written;

-          Please avoid adding very old references;

Author Response

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all of my comments. The revised manuscript may be accepted in its form

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors did extensive corrections to the manuscript and took into consideration the reviewer's observations and suggestions. Therefore, no further comments and suggestions are necessary. Manuscript can be published in the present form.