Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Excellent paper with minor flaws.

 

It is not clear whether the phenomenological creep model (eq. 3 and eq. 5) has been taken from literature, since there is no reference. If the model is from literature, please reference. If not, please explain in detail your motivation for the design of the equation. It appears conclusive, but random. There might have been plenty of other choices. Why did you chose this one?

A table of variables would help, since not every symbol in every equation is denoted in the text. (e.g. it is not intrinsically clear that eps_f is used for creep deformation, see eq. 1)

Please use consistent italic formatting for all variables and symbols.

Formatting of tables is inconsistent.

Black line at the left side of figure 4.

"F=500" in Figure 5b.

"Coulumb", line 325 and line 329. Should be "Coulomb".

Font size of axis labeling in the figures is inconsistent.

Figure 10: better to place the chart on the right side of the figure.

Author Response

Reviewer 1: Open Review

Please see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper investigated the mechanical responses of the small punch creep test by a series of finite element modeling and experimental comparison. The influences of key parameters such as the friction coefficient on the test results were discussed, and the results can provide helpful guidance for the recently published SPC standard. The manuscript is well structured and could be accepted for publication in Metals after the following issues are addressed.

(1) Page 4 Line 130, the authors adopted a phenomenological creep model i.e. Eq.(3). Was the model proposed by the authors or others?

(2) Page 2 Line 90, The authors used the “Design data” from RCC-MRx for the calibration of the model. What is the difference between design data and experimental data from RCC-MRx? The lower bound or some safety factors were adopted to guarantee the conservatism?

(3) The general creep model is strain-based, so what’s the corresponding failure criterion for creep failure? That is, how to determine the creep rupture life? Whether it is related to creep ductility? The stress state of the sample for SPC test is not uniaxial, so how to consider the multiaxial effects in the creep model? The authors should clarify this point, because they compared the rupture lives in the subsequent numerical analysis.

(4) Besides, how to obtain the rupture life of the sample from the simple Norton model? It is a little bit obscure, because this is a creep model for secondary creep.

 

 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf