Microstructure and Micro-Hardness of Dissimilar Metal Cladding from a Pipe–Nozzle Mockup for PWR
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- This article can not be reviewed in the current form because the submission is incomplete. The manuscript has not shown any figures except Figure 1, although the text specifies the presence of 9 figures that should be displayed within the manuscript.
- Abstract: the first two sentences, “Dissimilar metal cladding is necessary to protect the low alloy steel pressure vessel and its nozzles when exposed to the corrosive primary water in pressurized water reactor (PWR) nuclear power plants. However, many problems will arise during the dissimilar metal cladding process.” Should not be mentioned in the Abstract section but in the Introduction. Please modify the Abstract.
- Experimental part; line 82 and line 83, more information about SEM/EDS such as the operations parameters and the manufacturer should be mentioned in the text.
Author Response
1. This article can not be reviewed in the current form because the submission is incomplete. The manuscript has not shown any figures except Figure 1, although the text specifies the presence of 9 figures that should be displayed within the manuscript.
Response:
We are terribly sorry for the inconvenience brought to the reviewer due to our negligence. We make sure that all the figures and table would be displayed in the revised manuscript.
2. Abstract: the first two sentences, “Dissimilar metal cladding is necessary to protect the low alloy steel pressure vessel and its nozzles when exposed to the corrosive primary water in pressurized water reactor (PWR) nuclear power plants. However, many problems will arise during the dissimilar metal cladding process.” Should not be mentioned in the Abstract section but in the Introduction. Please modify the Abstract.
Response:
We have modified the Abstract section according to the reviewer's comment.
3. Experimental part; line 82 and line 83, more information about SEM/EDS such as the operations parameters and the manufacturer should be mentioned in the text.
Response:
We have revised this part as you suggested. XL30 was the model of the SEM used in present work and FEI was the manufacturer, which has been provided in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
In general the paper suits well Metals area of interests, but there is no figures and tables in the manuscript.
I suppose that this manuscript could be reviewed in details only after resubmitting with properly inserted tables and figures according to the Guide for authors.
Be the way I kindly ask the authors to check the text once more: there are some misprints and grammatical errors.
Author Response
1. In general, the paper suits well Metals area of interests, but there is no figures and tables in the manuscript.
Response:
We appreciate your comment. Again, we are really sorry for the inconvenience brought to the reviewer due to our negligence. The revised manuscript with full set of figures and tables has been uploaded.
2. I suppose that this manuscript could be reviewed in details only after resubmitting with properly inserted tables and figures according to the Guide for authors.
Response:
We make sure that all the figures and table will be displayed in the revised manuscript. We greatly appreciate your time to review our revised manuscript again and are looking forward to hearing from you.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is well written and has very good English. The authors have included the figures and revised the manuscript, which is now highly improved.
Author Response
We highly appreciate this comment.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
the paper after revision seems very good. I have only one small comment: please explain marks on Figure 1 (a) 52Mw, 52Mb, C52M in the text of Section 2.1.
On my mind this paper is suitable better for Metals journal but it can be published also in Coatings.
Author Response
Thanks for this comment. We have modified the manuscript accordingly.
