Rational Alloy Design of Niobium-Bearing HSLA Steels

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Your article is good and interesting. There are only a few comments:

1. The abbreviation “DBTT” is used before it is decrypted.
2. The designation “PAGS”, “TMP” is not deciphered
3. Line 101. A small typo: “and the large grain size that resultS from slab reheating”
4. Line 67: most likely a typo – two times “are”
5. It’s clear what is meant, but it sounds like slang: “the nucleation of polygonal ferrite occurs on the Sv”
6. “It is clear that all the NbC available in 0.04 wt.% Nb will be dissolved…” It is clear what was meant, but it looks strange. Possibly missing the word “steel”: “It is clear that all the NbC available in 0.04 wt.% Nb steel will be dissolved”
7. If the data for fig. 3 were calculated from (1), it is not clear why the graphs diverge for steels of different compositions for the amount of Nb in steel <0.04 wt. Nb. Since, starting from (1), the limiting amount of Nb in a solid solution for a given temperature T is defined as (10 ^ (2.06-6700 / T)) / 0.06, and it does not depend on the amount of Nb in steel.
8. Line 154: “0” is omitted in “0.55% Nb”. And by the way, if one calculates this value according to (10 ^ (2.06-6700 / T)) / 0.06, then 0.054 would be the result, but in the figure this value is looking more similar to 0.057.
9. In (2), pinning force is considered in Newtons, but in the text and in Table 1 it is mentioned in Pascals. Probably it should be written how it is calculated in Pascals.
10. Line 240: What does “right” mean?
11. Lines 261-262: a new paragraph may have accidentally begun.
12. As a remark on fig. 11: It seemed strange that the grains of H4 and H8 grew bigger than for L4 and L8. You can leave this comment unattended. However, perhaps you would like to make some comments for the reader in the text about this.
13. Line 318. If you mean a decrease in grain size for three passes compared to two, then in absolute terms the decrease is greater for H4.
14. Line 328: Must be “figure 15”

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

Your article is good and interesting. There are only a few comments:

1. The abbreviation “DBTT” is used before it is decrypted.

Corrected in manuscript using tracking function, line 40

2. The designation “PAGS”, “TMP” is not deciphered

Corrected in manuscript using tracking function, lines 100 & 112

3. Line 101. A small typo: “and the large grain size that resultS from slab reheating”

Corrected in manuscript using tracking function

4. Line 67: most likely a typo – two times “are”

Corrected in manuscript using tracking function

5.It’s clear what is meant, but it sounds like slang: “the s 112, nucleation of polygonal ferrite occurs on the Sv”

Corrected in manuscript using tracking function, line 112

6. “It is clear that all the NbC available in 0.04 wt.% Nb will be dissolved…” It is clear what was meant, but it looks strange. Possibly missing the word “steel”:

Corrected in manuscript using tracking function, line 154

( “It is clear that all the NbC available in 0.04 wt.% Nb steel will be dissolved”)

7. If the data for fig. 3 were calculated from (1), it is not clear why the graphs diverge for steels of different compositions for the amount of Nb in steel <0.04 wt. Nb. Since, starting from (1), the limiting amount of Nb in a solid solution for a given temperature T is defined as (10 ^ (2.06-6700 / T)) / 0.06, and it does not depend on the amount of Nb in steel.

Corrected in manuscript using tracking function, line 162

8. Line 154: “0” is omitted in “0.55% Nb”. And by the way, if one calculates this value according to (10 ^ (2.06-6700 / T)) / 0.06, then 0.054 would be the result, but in the figure this value is looking more similar to 0.057.

Corrected in manuscript using tracking function, line 154

9. In (2), pinning force is considered in Newtons, but in the text and in Table 1 it is mentioned in Pascals. Probably it should be written how it is calculated in Pascals.

Agreed. Corrected in manuscript using tracking function, line 194

10. Line 240: What does “right” mean?

Right cylinder as in right triangle, i.e., 90 degrees.  No change required.

11. Lines 261-262: a new paragraph may have accidentally begun.

Agreed, corrected in text.  Line 262.

12. As a remark on fig. 11: It seemed strange that the grains of H4 and H8 grew bigger than for L4 and L8. You can leave this comment unattended. However, perhaps you would like to make some comments for the reader in the text about this.

No comment.

13. Line 318. If you mean a decrease in grain size for three passes compared to two, then in absolute terms the decrease is greater for H4.

No, not exactly.  What we meant to say was that the smallest grain size in fig 14 after three passes was for steel L8.  We will add this to the text around line 318.

14. Line 328: Must be “figure 15”

Agreed. Corrected in manuscript using tracking function, line 328

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your extensive, positive and constructive reviews.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf