Mesomechanical Aspects of the Strain-Rate Sensitivity of Armco-Iron Pulled in Tension

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors of this study have proposed a new extension to the elastic-visco-plastic model to explain the strain rate sensitivity of Armco-iron samples subjected to tension in a generalized state of stress. The article includes a comprehensive review of relevant literature to justify the need for this research. The abstract effectively summarizes the key aspects of the study. The introduction is well-written and includes an excellent literature review that logically establishes the need for this research. The language used throughout the article is clear, concise, and easy to understand. The experimental section is well-structured and provides reproducible methods.

The mathematical model is based on a relaxation-type constitutive equation that utilizes equivalent stress and strain. The plastic strain rate is determined using the Orowan equation, which pertains to the dynamics of dislocations. To account for the microstructure of the material, an explicit representation is incorporated using a step-by-step packing method for a representative volume element (RVE). The modeling results are compared with existing experimental data and are found to be in satisfactory agreement. The conclusion is based on both experimental and mathematical investigations, and future research directions are suggested.

However, some improvements can be made to the manuscript. For example, it would be helpful to include the ASTM reference for the dog bone in line 82. It is unclear what the XY plane is in line 101, and it may be beneficial to provide a 3D picture to show the different directions. Similarly, in line 130, it is not clear what the YZ plane represents. The quality of figures 5c and 5d can be improved, and it would be helpful to use true colors to improve the visibility of the gradient in figure 6.

Overall, this manuscript should be accepted as it will likely attract citations.

Author Response

1) Thank you very much for the comment. Dog bone sample corresponds to ASTM E8M. We put the ASTM reference.

2) Thank you very much for the comment. A 3D picture was provided illustrating the microstructure of material in question in both directions. We also added the XYZ origin in Fig. 1 to clarify the planes.

3) Thank you very much for the comment. The quality of figures 5-6 was improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

The work analyses the mesomechanical aspects of strain rate sensitivity of Armco-iron pulled in tension. The article is written correctly and I don’t have major comments. I think that the manuscript is at a sufficient level in terms of organization. The results of modeling are compared with the available experimental data and are found correlate well.

Minor comments:

Abstract needs rewriting. The abstract should contain:

- background: place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study,

- methods: describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration numbers, and species and strains of any animals used,

- results: summarize the article's main findings

- conclusion: indicate the main conclusions or interpretations.

APA citation style is not acceptable. In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10).

List of references contains many mixed-up citation styles. Authors are asked to read the Instructions for Authors.

Literature review in the Introduction section is outdated. It is suggested to discuss current literature in the field of mesomechanical aspects of strain rate sensitivity.

Figure 1 presents "microstructure" rather than "structure". The main text should also be corrected accordingly.

section 2.1: how was the chemical composition determined?

sigma in Eq. (2) has not been explained.

Description of the axes in the graphs: commas should be replaced with dots.

Table 3: Add units and replace commas with dots.

Equations 1-6, 8, 12 are well known. Sources to the relevant literature should be added.

The results should be further discussed with previously published works.

I found no significant language errors.

Author Response

1) Thank you very much for the comment. Abstract was revised.

2) Thank you very much for the comment. References style was revised as well as citation manner in the text.

3) Figure 1 presents "microstructure" rather than "structure". The main text should also be corrected accordingly.

Thank you very much for the comment. Revised.

4) section 2.1: how was the chemical composition determined?

Thank you very much for the comment. The chemical composition of Armco-iron was determined using an S4 Pioneer X-ray fluorescence spectral analyzer.

5) sigma in Eq. (2) has not been explained.

Thank you very much for the comment. Revised.

6) Description of the axes in the graphs: commas should be replaced with dots. Thank you very much for the comment. Revised.

7) Table 3: Add units and replace commas with dots.

Thank you very much for the comment. Revised.

8) Equations 1-6, 8, 12 are well known. Sources to the relevant literature should be added.

Thank you very much for the comment. Relevant literature was cited.

9) The results should be further discussed with previously published works.

Thank you very much for the comment. The results were additionally compared to the previously published works.

Reviewer 3 Report

The English should be amended as there are many weak formulation. Spotted one just at the very beginning “The new extension”. Many other were found the same

It is required to define all the acronyms before their first appearance in text

The first paragraph  in introduction requires better structure

“at different strain rates, the strength can change significantly” do not make sense as not clear if you speak about high strain rate or what ?

“the first mechanical test “line 28 is wrong as you bring a ref from 2008 !

I strongly advice to check the entire introduction as many sentence do not have a proper flow! At least first paragraph is very confusing !

“Despite a significant number of studies carried out, there are still some aspects” and you put two references to validate it ! this is not an appropriate way to present the state of art

“without an additional surface finish” rather of this it is required to provide details of surface finish

“The standard method for steels and alloys” a reference/s is required !

“The abrasives of different grits” please provide a complete details of grit and polishing procedure.

Otherwise the methods should be described in details in order to be able to reproduce this study – as now this manuscript has a lot of missing details !

Not clear how many test were conducted for each type of experiment!

Some references are required for formulas presented there

“Lüders fronts propagation” can you show in your images where are these aspects ?

Most of references are out of date therefore some more recent one are required

The english requires major improvemnts 

Author Response

1) The English should be amended as there are many weak formulation. Spotted one just at the very beginning “The new extension”. Many other were found the same

Thank you very much for the comment. The manuscript was proofread by professional english editing service.

2) It is required to define all the acronyms before their first appearance in text. Thank you very much for the comment. Revised

3) The first paragraph in introduction requires better structure

“at different strain rates, the strength can change significantly” do not make sense as not clear if you speak about high strain rate or what ?

Thank you very much for the comment. Revised.

4) “the first mechanical test “line 28 is wrong as you bring a ref from 2008 !

Thank you very much for the comment. We did not mean that the first mechanical tests were conducted in 2008. Just that authors of (Armstrong and Walley, 2008) pointed out that strain rate sensitivity was of interest to the researchers from the first mechanical tests.

5) I strongly advice to check the entire introduction as many sentence do not have a proper flow! At least first paragraph is very confusing !

Thank you very much for the comment. The introduction section was revised.

6) “Despite a significant number of studies carried out, there are still some aspects” and you put two references to validate it ! this is not an appropriate way to present the state of art

Thank you very much for the comment. The presented manuscript did not intend to present a comprehensive review of state of the art, which might be found in (Hall, 1970; Yoshida et al., 2008; ). For this reason, we provided only two references as an example of discussed phenomenon in the first version of manuscript.

We added some substantial references discussing the Lüders banding aspects.

7) “without an additional surface finish” rather of this it is required to provide details of surface finish, “The standard method for steels and alloys” a reference/s is required !, “The abrasives of different grits” please provide a complete details of grit and polishing procedure. Otherwise the methods should be described in details in order to be able to reproduce this study – as now this manuscript has a lot of missing details !

Thank you very much for the comment. Revised.

8) Not clear how many test were conducted for each type of experiment!

Thank you very much for the comment. We added the information about how many tests were conducted to obtain each experimental point.

9) Some references are required for formulas presented there.

Thank you very much for the comment. Revised.

10) “Lüders fronts propagation” can you show in your images where are these aspects ?

Thank you very much for the comment. We added an explanatory figure to the appendix and supplementary animation of the yield plateau stage.

11) Most of references are out of date therefore some more recent one are required.

Thank you very much for the comment. Some recent articles are added.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

.

.