Insight into the Role of Mo Content on the Microstructure and Impact Toughness of X80 Thick-Walled Low-Temperature Pipeline Steel
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors.
First general remark:
I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style, that is why your paper requires some final editing of English language and style by qualified person.
However, I have spotted some problems and give you some suggestions to make it better.
Second general remark:
Try to avoid presenting results of your studies in section ‘Discussion’ (i.e. Figures 10-12). If the results are not yours, or they were published earlier do give appropriate reference!
Title of the article:
No remarks!
Abstract:
Row 13 …………………………………………………studied instead of elucidated…
Rows 18-19 3 times used word increase !
So try ……..Increasing………….rise……………..enhancement
Row 20 ………………………………from blocky to the slender
Row 21 ….density in the ferrite matrix ………………M/A constituents enhanced with the
Row 22 ………………This also led to increase of the micro-strains …..
1. Introduction
Row 39 alloying elements Mo and Ni……………..
2. Experimental procedure (should be written in Past Tense)
Row 96 tents were listed in Table 1. The thick plates (thickness of 24mm ) ……………
Row 98 ………………………….route was shown ……………
Remark to Row 99
One problem seems to be essential, namely in section 2 you claimed to perform impact toughness tests according to ASTM E-23 standard. However, no data about number of samples per test temperature was given (I assume, typically 3 samples) nor confidence limits were disclosed in section 3 ‘Results’. The impact toughness results were one of crucial items for this work (and article). I think for quality and higher value of the article you should enhance the results by adding confidence limits (after making some additional impact tests, if needed).
Row 104 in 4%......
Row 108 ………………………polishing in the solution of 90%.........and...............10%
Row 115 foils instead of slices……………
Row 118 Hitachi SU-500 SEM with EBSD was further ………………….
Some information should be added about dilatometer, which was used to determine Ar temperatures (results presented in Fig.9).
3. Results
(section should be written in the Past tense!)
Please move here the results of dilatometric analysis (Figure 9.) from section ‘Discussion’.
Row 129 ……………………………..constituents were presented…..
Row 134 ……………………………2.5% of it.
Row 141 ………………………………..observations…..
Row 144 ………………….., with the results showed in Figure 3(a-b)…
Row145 …………………………..fraction were presented.
Row 146 ………………………distribution, as in reference [16],…….
Row 149 …………………………………………….showed..
Row 166 ……………………………………………..contents were pre-
Row 168 ……………………………………………………distributed on the ….
Row 170 ………………………………………constituents was shown ….
Row 171 revealed a low ……………….
Row 173 …………………..constituents could be ………………….imaging as it was shown
Row 175 ……………………………structure was further …….
Row 178 ……..(LBF) could be …..
Row 179 constituents could be seen………
Row 180 morphology was ………….
Row 181 ………………………………………. constituents was……
Row 182 …………………………………………………………. constituents could be
Row 184 …………….. still exhibited a ……………………
Row 186 ……….. consisted of both ………………..
Row 187 could be obtained …………………
Row 189-195 Rewrite the title of the Figure 4 in simple form. Now it looks like a piece of normal article body text (!!!) which should be written in Past Tense.
Row 197 ……………………………………….content were shown…
Row 198 ..The results of quantitative ………………..could be found
Row 200 ……………………………………..(….) were represented ……
Row 205 ……………………..41.3% could be observed. ……….
Row 206 ………………………………[..] could be …..
Row 208 ………………………………….(..) could be seen ….
Row 221 The results of impact energy were presented in Table 3.
Remarks:
1.Text - rows 196-217 should contain description of Figures 10-12 which ought to be moved from section ‘Discussion’ after Figure 5. Do not forget to make renumbering of Figures!
2. Text – rows 230-237 sounds like discussion of the results and should be moved to section ‘4. Discussion’.
Row 227 ……………………………………………..value indicated greater…..
Row 230 ………………………………………………………………..was observed
Row 233 Why is here reference [15,19] ? The presented results are yours! The section ‘Results’ should contain the results of your studies!
Row 235 …………………….fracture occurred………use inferior or worse instead of poorer
Row 236 …………………….which resulted in ……
Row 243 ………….presented………..
Row 244 …………………….depicted ……………….
Row 246 ………………………………………………..was indicated
Row 248 ……………………………………………………………………..area was
Row 251 region were shown …………………………………………………dimples was the
Row 252 …………………., which was indicative…
Row 253 ……………………………were small….
Rows 254-255 …………………………………………………………………Mo, the impact toughness was ……
Row 257 ……………………………………………….were depicted…
Row 258 ……………………………………………………was ….by the occurrence of numerous …..
Row 261 were displayed …………………..
Row 262 Remove the last sentence from page 8! It is not necessary as on the next page we have section 4. Discussion!
4. Discussion
{General remark: Discussion (section should also be written in the Past tense! )
Past tense is always used to discuss our study and present tense for discussions of other studies! Franco A. Maiorana; Horacio F. Mayer: ‘How to avoid common errors in writing scientific manuscripts’.}
Row 269 … demonstrated
Row 271-272 …………………………………… content, the amounts of PF and GB decreased, at the expense of LB. Thus ……and share of microstructural …. were..
Row 276 ………………………………………………………………….. It could
Row 279 ……………………………………………………(Ar1) lowered from ….
Row 280 indicated a shift …………………………………….. remove reference [22,23] !
Remark: text: Rows 273 starting from ‘For understanding ….’ till Row 281 ‘………increase Mo content’ describes results of dilatometric investigations. However there is no information about the instrument. The methodology and the instrument should be described in section 2. Experimental procedure! At the same time the Figure 9 should be moved to section 3. Results!
The authors ought to decide the final form of the article.
If you have separate sections 3. Results and 4. Discussion - please do not input the results to the latter section!!!
Row 281 … Previous studies [reference!] have …
Row 284 …………….an increase in Mo content promoted the ………………….
Row 285 …………………………….This resulted in the ………………
Row 289 …………………………………………………… inhibited PF formation, …
Row 291 ……………………………Mo exhibited ………………
Row 293 ………………………………….., what was found in earlier works [18,22,24].
Remark to Rows 300-302
The statements are commonly known, and reference here e.g. [18,20,21] are improper.
Pioneering works of Davenport and Bain were published in 1930.
J.W. Christian published ‘The theory of transformations in metals and alloys’ in 1965 (Oxford Press).
That is why, I can also hardly except references [18,21,23] in Row 304.
{Row 306 …………………………………………………….. metastable phase g’ [?]. ..
Row 308 ……………………………………during martensitic transformation of g’ [?]. ..}
Rewrite the sentences (rows 306-322) in Past Tense referring to your results (tables, figures present work).
You may eventually quote some works applying e.g. ‘ … as it was also earlier found by Zhao et al. [reference]’
or e.g. ‘The achieved results of this studies are also consistent with works by Fan et. al. [?] and Lan et. al. [?].’
Do not use the same word few times in the same sentence.
e.g. Rows 312-313.
Row 312 content lowered …………………………, increased the ………
Row 313 ……………………..subsequently enhanced ……This was the primary reason for Row 314 extended content of …………………………………………….., as it was shown in
and again
Row 315 …., increasing Mo ………………………………..enhanced the content …….
Row 317 …………………………………………….. The metastable austenite g’ transformed
Row 319 ………………… were ……….…or PF, as it was earlier found in works [12,18].
Row 320 …………………………….lowered the starting………………
Row 322 improper reference [18].
[18] – There was studied the influence of Mn content not Mo!
Row 341 …………………………………………………………… rather than enhancement
Row 342 ………………………..The results (Table ?, Figure ?) showed … or It was earlier found [reference] that grain size was not …….
Row 345 …………………… It showed ……………………………was dominated
Row 346 ………………….. Mo content, the amount ……
Row 347 …………………………………………………………….were extremely
Row 348 ……………………………….. The reasons were as follows:
Row 349 …………………………..caused by the increase of Mo content resulted
Row 351 ……………………………..brought about large local ….
Row 353 ……………………….. would be further …
Row 355 …………………………………results (Figure 10) showed ….
Row 356 …………………………………was manifested….
Row 357 ……………………, thus confirming results of earlier works [15,18,19]. ..
Row 359 ……….. It could be seen ….
Row 360 initiated ……………..
Row 362 matrix took place …………….
Rows 369-371 Figure 10 ought to be moved to section ‘3. Results’
Row 372 ………… number of studies [references 19,21?] have shown ……..
Row 378 …………………………………….greater or higher phase transition degree ……….
Row 380 amount of HAGB in the sample …..
Row 381 ……………………. HAGB amount
Row 383 ……………………………………………………………, microvoids initiation and
Row 384 their coarsening were ….
Row 385 ………………………………………observed by means of SEM (…)…
Row 390 was another ……
Rows 391-396 Figures 11 – 12 and their description ought to be moved to section ‘3. Results’!
Row 397 ………………………………… of high strength steel grade ……..
Row 399 ………………………………………………, this study showed that ….
Row 400 …………… content would deteriorate ………
Row 403 ………………………………………… provided ………….
5. Conclusions
Row 408 …………. behavior was dominated by …………….
Row 420 … were most …………….
Row 421 …………………………. initiation was increased due to enhancement of
Author Response
Thanks for the reviewer's comments. We have adjusted and modified the article based on your suggestions, please refer to the revised manuscript for details.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
see attached document
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
see attached document
Author Response
Thanks for the reviewer's valuable suggestions. We have adjusted and modified the article based on your suggestions, please refer to the revised manuscript for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is devoted to the investigation of Mo content influence on the microstructure and impact toughness of the X80 pipeline steel. It has been shown that Mo content of about 0.25% provides optimal values of impact strength at -45 °C, and an increase in its content contributes to steel embrittlement. In the authors opinion, the main reason for this behavior is the change in the steels phase composition, as well as the increase of slender M/A constituents while the decrease of HAGB at Mo content 0.40%.
Some remarks:
1. Line 20: Please explain the abbreviation "M/A constituents".
2. Line 23: Please explain the abbreviation "MTA".
3. Line 23: “…High angle grain boundary (HAGB) (MTA＞15°) was decreased…”. It means that the number fraction of HAGB was decreased?
4. Line 48: “… that increasing Mo content significantly enhanced strength of the steel by reducing the phase transformation temperature…”. Зlease add «..phase transformation temperature at cooling…».
5. Line 70: "large angle grain boundaries" should be changed to "high angle grain boundaries"
6. Fig. 2: It is difficult to distinguish between PF, GB, LB in the figure. Enlarge the figure, please.
7. Fig. 2: volume fractions of phases are calculated with an accuracy of tenths of a percent. What is the error?
8. Did the size of the grains of the prior austenite change with increasing Mo content?
9. Fig. 3: tabs in figures a, b are approximately the same scale as the main figure. What are they needed for?
10. Fig. 4: Please note in which reflexes the dark fields were made.
11. What is the fraction of austenite in the studied steels? Was it determined by the EBSD method or, for example, by X-ray diffraction analysis? In the statistics based on the EBSD analysis, data on grain sizes and misorientations are presented without separating the bcc and fcc phases?
12. According to the SEM data, you calculate the statistics on the content of the PF, GB, LB phases. Is it possible to separate the morphology of the bcc phase using EBSD data?
13. Line 97: At TMCP plastic deformation was performed by rolling?? In what section were the microstructural features of steels studied? Is there any anisotropy in the rolled product structure?
14. Fig. 8: "cleavage facts" should be replaced with "cleavage facets"
15. Fig. 8: there are no captions for figures a, b.
Author Response
Thanks for the reviewer's valuable suggestions. We have adjusted and modified the article based on your suggestions, please refer to the revised manuscript for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I have completed and accepted the revised manuscript.
Need to improve.
