Experimental Study on Microalloyed Steel with Layers Subjected to Diesel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper studied the mechanical behavior of microalloyed steels with surface coating using boriding process and immersion in diesel. In this work, the mechanical performance was evaluated by tensile test. From my point of view, the work is meaningful, however, I think the research method can be improved.

 

1. The influence of manufacturing process for surface coating should be included, and that will make the work more sufficient. For example, the effects of heating time or heating temperature.

 

2. In the tensile test, I think it would be better to add the numerical simulation by finite element method, so that it will make it more convincing.

 

3. The work pointed out the existence of cracks and fracture. However, the corresponding fracture theory and analysis are not given.

 

4. The conclusions are too long. The paper only needs to draw some important conclusions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language can be improved.

Author Response

Thank you for given us the opportunity to submit a revise draf of the manuscript “Experimental Study on Microalloyed Steel with layers Subjected to Diesel” We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers.

Please see below, in the table, in the first column are the reviewers' comments and in the second column are the responses to the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In their article, the authors examined the effect of keeping them in oil for 1 year after boriding applied to two steel grades used in the oil industry, on their mechanical properties. The idea of the article contains novelty. However, when I examined the article, it was seen that only tensile tests of samples kept in oil environment were examined. In the article, I think that tensile tests should be carried out on the samples without keeping them in boronized and oil environment. Otherwise, the article will remain incomplete. Additionally, the following issues need to be revised.

 

The subject of boriding should be mentioned in the introduction section. It is recommended that you look at books and book chapters on boronization.

Kulka, M., Kulka, M., & Castro. (2019). Current trends in borrowing (pp. 17-98). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Campos Silva, I. E., Günen, A., Serdar Karakaş, M., & Delgado Brito, A. M. (2023). The Boriding Process for Enhancing the Surface Properties of High-Temperature Metallic Materials. Coatings for High-Temperature Environments: Anti-Corrosion and Anti-Wear Applications, 221-259.

 

The images in Figure 2 should be visible.

In Table 2, one parameter is shown as K and the other parameter is shown as °C. Show standard notation throughout the entire article.

EDS analyzes in Figure 5 are not visible. Images must be made visible.

 

Compare the tensile test results with the tensile test studies on boriding in the literature.

https://doi.org/10.1134/S0031918X15090021

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12416/2596

In order to determine the effects of keeping the samples in a diesel environment for 1 year, they should be compared with samples that were not kept in a diesel environment. Otherwise it won't make any sense.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

Thank you for given us the opportunity to submit a revise draf of the manuscript “Experimental Study on Microalloyed Steel with layers Subjected to Diesel” We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article „Experimental Study on Microalloyed Steel with layers Subjected to Diesel” aims to contribute  with own experimental outcomes regarding the mechanical characteristics of  boride coats deposited on two microalloyed steels and immersed 1 year in diesel, at room temperature. The authors envisaged possible potential applications in the storage of fuels, oils, hydrogen and biofuels. The study is important as topic, brings some valuable new data in the field, but it must be improved as to be reliable and useful for the readership and possible stakeholders. The following comments address some issues that were considered as important to be considered.

 Comment no. 1. The authors ignore the cutume of significant digits when refer to quantitative results as is posted in Table 1 and Table 2 where the measurement uncertainty is missed. Also in lines 129-130 „For PB60ID it shows a thickness of 133.30 ± 9.10 FeB/Fe2B bilayer. In PB70ID shows a thickness of 146.26 ± 8.91 FeB/Fe2B  bilayer.”

 Comment no. 2. (Line 128) The statement “The variation of the thickness of the iron boride layer is due to the alloying elements and the boriding process.” is vague. It needs further explanations regarding the way in which  alloying elements and the boriding process cause variation of the thickness of the iron boride layer. Actually, there is no correlation among the specimens elemental compositions and their studied characteristics posted in the paper.

 Comment no. 3. The SEM  images in Figure 5 are blurry, while EDS spectra are illegible. They must be improved.

 Comment no. 4. The degree unit is missed for some posted angular values (see lines 144-146)

 Comment no. 5. The units of the ordinate axes in Figure 6. a,b differ. Please explain!

  

Comment no. 6. The way of citation is not uniform accross the paper (see lines: 48, 52, 56, 171, 173 etc.)

 

 

 Comment no. 7. (Line 187)  The statement „Specimen PB60ID shows decrease in yield strength, fracture strain and ultimate tensile strength; compared to specimen PB70ID” is not valid when the guard bands of the results are ignored in experimental data comparison. Thus, the statement must be supported by significant evidences!

  

Comment no. 8. The Figure 8 does not show clearly dimples and transgranular fracture details,  at least for me! I am afraid that the reader will have difficulties seeing what the authors described regarding Figure 8.  The quality of the images in Figure 8 mast be improved.

 

 Comment no. 8. The statements „These types of cracks appear to play a significant role in the properties”, (line 240), is vague as no „property” , (i.e. characteristic), is mentioned and no way in which cracks affect that characteristic! Supplementary evidences are needed to support such affirmation!

 Comment no. 9. The conclusion 5 -„The inclusion of these types of studies may have an impact in situations where there are few relevant studies or interest in fuel or biofuel storage.”  tries to attribute value to the paper by the lack of published relevant studies in the fiel of fuel or biofuel storage.  It may be true, but the intrinsic scientific and experimental value of the paper must prevail.

 

Review conclusions

 The study described in the paper was inappropriate conducted i.e.

 1.      There is no evidences of the correlation among sample compositions,  boron paste composition, coating process and coatings characteristics (composition, thickness, morphology, phase content, roughness, mechanical characteristics)

 

2.      The difference between a property and a characteristic of a material is, intentional or not, ignored!!!

 3.      There is no clear comparisons, based on evidences,  among the coatings that were 1 year immersion in diesel fuel and the blanks ones.

 4.      The data posted in the paper look like refers to one measurement carried on an immersed specimen and not like an average of the measurements carried on a set of specimens tested in the same conditions. Thus, the statistics of the experiments miss.

 

5.      Some comparisons are done in the paper based on numerical values without taking account  the measurement uncertainty. Also, the cutume of significant digits is ignored across the paper. This is a critical lack of the experimental design that compromise the reliability of the results posted in the paper.

 Other  drawbacks  of the paper consist in:

 ·         Non uniform citation way across the paper

 ·         Images of low quality

 

·         Typewriting faults (ex. 3. Resulted y discussions)

 ·         Redundancies and truisms  (ex. Lines 37-57)

 Accordingly I recommend thoroughly revision of the paper, both as English and as content.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Must be improved!

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

Please see below, in the table, in the first column are the reviewers' comments and in the second column are the responses to the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers

Thank you for given us the opportunity to submit a revise draf of the manuscript “Experimental Study on Microalloyed Steel with layers Subjected to Diesel” We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

after reviewing the revised version, I am satisfied with the version, and I suggest to accept.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have fulfilled the shortcomings in the article. The article can be published in its current form.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

REVIEW 3	AUTHOR RESPONSE	ASCERTAINMENT
Comment no. 1. The authors ignore the cutume of significant digits when refer to quantitative results as is posted in Table 1 and Table 2 where the measurement uncertainty is missed. Also in lines 129-130 „For PB60ID it shows a thickness of 133.30 ± 9.10 FeB/Fe2B bilayer. In PB70ID shows a thickness of 146.26 ± 8.91 FeB/Fe2B  bilayer.”	Table 1 are qualitative values of chemical composition of microalloyed steels and Table 2 are values established by x-ray diffraction patterns. The result in micrometers (μm) of the layer thicknesses was inserted.	There are 3 Table 2 in the paper !!! Lines 101, 167,  181     Qualitative numerical values of the alloys compositions means doubtful knowledge on the items undertaken experiments!   The improper reporting the measurand values and their associated uncertainties still persist in Table 2, line 181. Also, in line 128, 129.
Comment no. 2. (Line 128) The statement “The variation of the thickness of the iron boride layer is due to the alloying elements and the boriding process.” is vague. It needs further explanations regarding the way in which  alloying elements and the boriding process cause variation of the thickness of the iron boride layer. Actually, there is no correlation among the specimens elemental compositions and their studied characteristics posted in the paper.	We think this is an excellent suggestion. This paragraph has been explained, based on literature studies.	I coudn't see any pertinent explanations regarding the way in which  alloying elements and the boriding process cause variation of the thickness of the iron boride layer.
Comment no. 3. The SEM  images in Figure 5 are blurry, while EDS spectra are illegible. They must be improved.	Figure 5, has been improved	The improvement is not significant
Comment no. 4. The degree unit is missed for some posted angular values (see lines 144-146)	the grade unit has been added	OK
Comment no. 5. The units of the ordinate axes in Figure 6. a,b differ. Please explain !	The units in Figure 6 have been homegenized	OK
Comment no. 6. The way of citation is not uniform accross the paper (see lines: 48, 52, 56, 171, 173 etc.)	The paper citation has been made uniform	Improper citation, Line 53
Comment no. 7. (Line 187)  The statement „Specimen PB60ID shows decrease in yield strength, fracture strain and ultimate tensile strength; compared to specimen PB70ID” is not valid when the guard bands of the results are ignored in experimental data comparison. Thus, the statement must be supported by significant evidences	This statement has been supported by literature on boriding steels	OK
Comment no. 8 . The Figure 8 does not show clearly dimples and transgranular fracture details,  at least for me! I am afraid that the reader will have difficulties seeing what the authors described regarding Figure 8.  The quality of the images in Figure 8 mast be improved.	The quality of the images in Figure 8 has been improved.	OK
Comment no. 8(9). The statements „These types of cracks appear to play a significant role in the properties”, (line 240), is vague as no „property” , (i.e. characteristic), is mentioned and no way in which cracks affect that characteristic! Supplementary evidences are needed to support such affirmation!	The statements were support based in the literature about the crack on boride layer under tensile test	OK
Comment no. 9 (10). The conclusion 5 -„The inclusion of these types of studies may have an impact in situations where there are few relevant studies or interest in fuel or biofuel storage.”  tries to attribute value to the paper by the lack of published relevant studies in the fiel of fuel or biofuel storage.  It may be true, but the intrinsic scientific and experimental value of the paper must prevail.	This conclusion 5 was omitted, conclusions with scientific and experimental support were added.	OK

 

According to the above table,  4 of 10 issues were not properly resolved. Also, the issue signaled in comment no. 9 , was easily resolved by erasing the phrase.

The revision made by authors does not eradicate all the issues signaled in the previous revision. Only the presence in the revised paper of 3 different tables indexed as Table 2 demonstrate an improper revision!    

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find attached file the detailed responses  and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf