Investigating the Static Recrystallization Behavior of 22MnB5 Manganese–Boron Steel through Stress Relaxation Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
This manuscript deals with study of SRX behavior of 22MnB5 during thermomechanical tests at temperatures of 950 – 1050 degrees. Modern methods of thermos-mechanical tests, EBSD analysis and reconstruction of prior austenite grains were used. The study validated reconstructed PAGs with high quality optic images and showed high accuracy of reconstruction. I suppose that study will help researchers and industrial engineers in simulating hot stamping processes. I recommend to publish this manuscript in Metals.
Small notes:
1. The methos of specimens preparation for optic and EBSD study should be added to the ‘experimental procedure’.
2. Probably, in figure 12 the areas occupied by packets and blocks showed by red and green colours, respectively, instead of boundaries between these parts. The description in figure and text should be clarified.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your extensive and well-founded feedback on the manuscript. We have incorporated your points as follows:
1.) Methodology Notes: The methodology of sample preparation and analysis, as well as the techniques used, have been extensively supplemented in the "Experimental Procedure" chapter.
2.) EBSD Notes: Regarding the EBSD images in Figure 12, it was previously noted that the colors and boundaries represent regions and not surfaces, which appear as areas due to a high boundary density.
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the static recrystallization behavior during deformation at high temperature is investigated, and a constitutive model was developed to describe it. The research design seems fine, and the manuscript is well-prepared. The reviewer feels that it could be published after minor correction of misspellings as suggested below.
1. Page 11 Line 320: low-angle -> log-angle boundaries ?
2. Page 11 Line 220: package -> packet ?
3. Page 11 Line 333: previous -> prior ?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your extensive and well-founded feedback on the manuscript. We have incorporated your points as given by you.
Reviewer 3 Report
This study presents the stress relaxation tests (SRT) and stress relaxation behavior of 22MnB5 within the hot stamping temperature window of 950 – 1050 °C. The paper is well organized and the quality of the figures used is appropriate. It is suggested to consider the following before publishing the article.
The abstract can be made more attractive by using more quantitative data. It is suggested to provide more quantitative results.
The novelty and purpose of the research should be clearly stated in the abstract and introduction.
Some parts of the article, such as the introduction, should be revised for consistency. So, the introduction should be written better and needs minor revisions. The part of the first paragraphs of the introduction is general information and can be stated more briefly.
At the end of the introduction, a suitable summary of the importance of the present issue should be provided.
Use the following resources to deepen the introduction. Deformation-induced dynamic precipitation of 14H-LPSO structure and its effect on dynamic recrystallization in hot-extruded Mg-Y-Zn alloys. Dynamic growth mechanism of tin whisker driven by compressive stress under thermal-mechanic-electric-diffusion coupling.
The sources used must be up-to-date. Also, the number of sources in the discussion section is minimal.
The results section is well organized and categorized. However, some parts report the results, which require corrections and deepening the analysis and discussion. It is suggested to modify the conclusion section as well as the abstract.
***
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your extensive and well-founded feedback on the manuscript. We have incorporated your points as follows:
1.) Comments on the Abstract: The abstract has been enriched with quantitative data to enhance clarity. It has been reiterated that the model for SRX in 22MnB5 press-hardened steel is novel and innovative, serving the prediction of component properties. Additionally, it is noteworthy that EBSD analyses, including the determination of PAG, packets, and blocks as a function of the SRX state, have been employed.
2.) Comments on the Introduction: The content of the paper addresses both materials engineers and production engineers. Therefore, it is useful to provide a brief overview of press hardening to explain the parameter window. The beginning of the introduction should retain the general information. At the end of the introduction, it has been emphasized that the results are relevant in that they can be integrated into FE software for predicting grain size and recrystallized fraction, as well as for the targeted adjustment of component properties.
3.) Consideration of Additional Sources: After a thorough review of the publications, a direct relevance to the manuscript was found, making it impossible to integrate the mentioned papers. The sources were carefully examined and, if necessary, corrected.
4.) Comments on the Results: The discussion section has been expanded to include sources that substantiate the statements under similar experimental conditions. Furthermore, the "Conclusions" section has been extended to include practical implications arising from the results, as well as limitations resulting from the experimental setup.
Reviewer 4 Report
The submitted study, entitled Investigation on static recrystallization behavior of 22MnB5 steel based on stress relaxation, is devoted to the development of a constitutive model to describe the static recrystallization and grain size development of press-hardened steel following hot forming of the material with its experimental verification.
Abstract: contains all relevant information that provides the reader with a basic picture of the problem and the basic results of the study, and I have no comments on this part.
Introduction: in this chapter, the authors devote themselves relatively consistently to a theoretical and literary overview of the investigated issue using adequate scientific sources. At the end of this chapter, the advantage of the used methodology is described. Here, however, I would welcome it if the authors would 1. define their own contribution exactly. So what is new about their study, what new results and conclusions does it provide compared to the literary sources they used.
Experimental procedure: in this chapter the authors define the experimental material, the description of the experiment as well as the model that is used to fulfill the basic goal. The chapter is created logically and quite precisely describes the entire experimental procedure. I have no comments on her.
Results and discussion: this chapter is divided into several partial parts. here, however, there was probably a problem with the marking of single-digit subsections, where each has 3.1. Here it will be necessary to 2. number the subsections in descending order (3.1 Stress relaxation curves, 3.2 Effect of deformation conditions on SRX behavior, 3.3 Modeling of SRX kinetics of 22MnB5 ...). If I leave this error aside, this chapter is built logically according to the individual researched areas, and the results and conclusions in this chapter are scientifically based and I can say that they are relevant. At the same time, there is an effort to compare one's own results with the results of other authors, which I appreciate.
Conclusions: represents a basic summary of the research results. Here, however, it will be necessary to add information about:
3. practical implications of the obtained results
4. about the limits that limit the given research
Overall, the post is written at a high level, but it will need to be supplemented with the 4 points I have listed above.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your extensive and well-founded feedback on the manuscript. We have incorporated your points as follows:
1.) Clearer Presentation of Novelty: We have provided a more detailed explanation of the novelty of the SRX model for 22MnB5 press-hardened steel, emphasizing its innovative nature and its purpose in predicting component properties. Furthermore, we have highlighted the novelty of using EBSD analysis to determine PAG, packets, and blocks as a function of the SRX state.
2.) Chapter Numbering Correction: We have corrected the chapter numbering as suggested.
3.) Results and Discussion Chapter: We have reinforced the results with findings from similar publications, both in terms of microstructure and the limited influence of strain rate on recrystallization kinetics.
4.) Rearranged Conclusions Chapter: We have reorganized the "Conclusions" chapter and provided detailed descriptions of practical implications.
5.) Limitations: We have presented limitations resulting from the experimental approach and highlighted the boundaries and weaknesses.
Thank you once again for your valuable feedback, which has greatly contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.
