Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer comments on the paper “A sharp-interface model of the diffusive phase transformation in a nickel-based superalloy”   

This paper presents finite element method analysis based on sharp-interface model. The paper is very good organized and includes novel methods and materials. The reviewer comments are suggested as:

Although the title, materials and methods of the present paper are very interesting, however the main novelties of it are not clear for the reviewer. Authors are encouraged to add more comments on the novelties and main contributions of the present paper in Abstract and last paragraph of Introduction section.

What is application of the proposed method? Authors are suggested to provide some technical expressions on the application of the proposed method and needing to this new finding.

The Introduction section is very briefly organized. The Introduction section should be improved using the papers on the material characteristics such as: Rare metals, 2020, 39(5), 589-596; Mater Let, 2022, 306. doi: 10.1016/j.matlet.2021.130896; microstruct proces, 2021, 819, 141507; Nanotechnology, 2021, 33(10), 105703; Intermetallics, 2022, 144. doi: 10.1016/j.intermet.2022.107528; J mater res techn, 2022, 18, 1028-1037.

All variables should be defined after first appearance in the paper.

All relations and equations have been employed without any reference to a valid work.

The units of Figure 9 are MPa or Pa? A correction is required.

The discussion is not informative. It should be enriched with addition of some more important conclusions.

The results and discussion are very briefly organized. An extended result and discussion is required.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article is mainly about the establishment of the sharp-interface model. The mathematical details should be fine. However, the high level of complexity in dealing with a simple two-phase system makes the reviewer concerned about how far the level-set method can go especially compared with the phase-field (diffusive interface) model. It is noted that the numerical results only qualitatively capture the laws established a long time ago. Then how can the numerical scheme be employed to deal with realistic problems or is there any trial? Considering the complexity and completeness of the work, I think it can be accepted for publication after addressing the following minor questions:

 

1. I think the introduction of the literature on the sharp/diffusive models for the problem is quite brief. It is unclear what problems have been solved and what remains. The authors may enrich the introduction to comment on the past related works.
2. The free energy (Eq. (0.1)) is a function of elastic deformation tensor F_e. Then in Eq. (0.2), shall the PK stress be expressed as a partial derivative with respect to F_e?
3. What is h_gama in Equation (0.7)? The symbol was not defined.
4. Table 1 is strange. They are equations. If listed in a table, please describe them in terms of Miller (lattice) indices (direction).
5. Eq. (0.8): it seems that the misfit is treated as a volumetric strain (no anisotropy). Please justify.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised paper is suggested for publication.