Research on Microstructures and Properties of High-Strength Anticorrosion Twinning-Induced Plasticity Steels

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study was carried out at a high scientific level using modern research methods. There are no significant comments on the work. The existing questions concern the corrosion part of the study. The paper presents only the data of electrochemical tests, which should be supplemented by the results of gravimetric tests. Also, the authors do not discuss the nature of corrosion damage on the materials under study (general or local) and the choice of the corrosive environment is not justified. Given the correction of these shortcomings, the article is recommended for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

• In the introduction section, should the authors define the term "SFE"?
• In the experimental procedures section, for the grade containing 12wt.%Cr, perhaps the authors can specify reference 15.
• In the results and discussion section, it is not clear if the authors have performed SFE measurements.  If the authors made the measurements themselves, what technique was used? By TEM? If not, why not? 
• In the sentence "For example, Mosecker et al gave the SFE values from 30 to 35 mJ·m-2 for the TWIP steels containing 12% to 18Cr.", the authors may specify the reference 26.
• The authors should check Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 does not present the typical properties of TWIP steels but their chemical composition. Table 2 gives the tensile properties but is presented too late in the paper.
• Perhaps the authors can compare the values given for the average yield, the tensile strength, and the average elongation with those in the literature, particularly those in reference 15.
• The figure showing the result of the EDS analysis is unreadable.
• The authors need to revise the structure of the following sentence because its length makes it virtually incomprehensible: "The carbon element content in the 12CrN and 18CrN samples is 0.32 and 0.28 wt.%, respectively, which is far lower than the 0.52 wt.% of TWIP-ref, however, the N content is as high as 0.31 and 0.32 wt.% for 12CrN and 
  18CrN, considering that the solid solution strengthening effect of N is 1.5 times that of C [16], which means the corresponding C content is 0.465 and 0.48 wt.%, respectively, so the carbon content represent total interstitial content of 12CrN and 18CrN samples are 0.785 
  and 0.76 wt.%, respectively, much higher than TWIP-ref, hence, the yield strength of the studied Fe-Mn-Cr-CN TWIP steel is significantly higher than that of TWIP-ref."
• How did the authors calculate the average grain size?
• In the conclusion section, the authors need to revise the structure of the following sentence: "(3) Compared with 12CrN sample, the 18CrN sample has a higher Cr content leads to the precipitation of M 23 C 6  enriched with Mn and Fe, which is harmful to the plasticity and corrosion resistance of the Fe-Mn-Cr-CN TWIP steel."

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf