Microstructure Characterization and Strengthening Mechanism Analysis of X100 Pipeline Steel
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have investigated the microstructure characterization and strengthening mechanism analysis of X100 pipeline steel. It is seen that advanced analysis was applied. The paper has been nicely written but needs some improvements. Please follow the comments below.
(1) Many sentences in the introduction are not supported by any reference. In addition, it is seen that the sentences are cited collectively by many references. Each sentence must be analyzed separately and the implications of the cited work must be presented more clearly.
(2) It is strongly recommended authors to add visual research gap. It can be placed after introduction section as a separate section. Authors can be sure that it will increase quality and impact of the manuscript.
(3) It is important to revise old-date references (1972, 1973, 1975, 1984, 1988, 2002, 2003,) with up-to-date references.
(4) Discussions are not enough for obtained results of the manuscript.
(5) It is hard to see arrows and highlighted characters. Please revise the images of Figure 1.
Author Response
We really appreciate your professional review work on our articles. As you have focused on, there are several issues that need to be addressed. According to your good suggestions, we have answered your questions and have revised the paper, the specific content is in the attachment, thank you for your valuable comments, I wish you a happy body and all the best
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is devoted to the study of the microstructure and mechanical properties of X100 class commercial steel for pipelines.
When reviewing the paper, I had several questions and comments to the authors of the article:
1. The commercial steel rolled from which was obtained under industrial conditions was subjected to research. Section 2. Materials and methods does not specify the thickness of the sheet and the rolling and cooling conditions under which this rolled sheet was obtained. This is very important in this study. Sheet metal for this purpose can have a thickness of up to 50 mm. During cooling, a temperature gradient is observed along the thickness of the rolled product and, as a result, the microstructure and properties along the thickness also have some differences. It is necessary to clarify what thickness the sheet was studied, under what conditions it was rolled and cooled.
2. Section 2. Materials and Methods does not describe the tensile testing equipment, the type of tensile specimens, and does not show what part of the rolled product and how they were cut. You need to add this information.
3. The information in Figure 7 is now poorly presented. You can add numbers (1, 2...9) on the line and it will be more informative for the reader.
4. What is the scientific novelty of the research? You perform routine mechanical testing and microstructure analysis of industrially produced flat products. How do the results of your research improve or correct the current process for rolling this sheet?
Author Response
We really appreciate your professional review work on our articles. As you have focused on, there are several issues that need to be addressed. According to your good suggestions, we have answered your questions and have revised the paper, the specific content is in the attachment, thank you for your valuable comments, I wish you a happy body and all the best
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper investigates the reinforcing mechanism of X100 high steel grade pipeline steel. The novelty is good. The revision:
1- please add annotation list.
2- In order to provide a more comprehensive literature review, the authors should cite and discuss the following relevant papers in their revised manuscript:
- Static capacity of tubular X-joints reinforced with fiber reinforced polymer subjected to compressive load. Engineering Structures. 2021 Jun 1;236:112041.
3- From line 219, why had NbC and NbN a higher solubility product?
4- Please improve the quality of Figs. 4 and 7.
5- Please compare the result with the results of previous similar works.
6-Why is the improvement limited when RD texture with higher strength is applied?
7-In line 169 we see “Figure 2b “. Also, in line 188 we see “Figure 3a”. Please use one format in all text.
Author Response
We really appreciate your professional review work on our articles. As you have focused on, there are several issues that need to be addressed. According to your good suggestions, we have answered your questions and have revised the paper, the specific content is in the attachment, thank you for your valuable comments, I wish you a happy body and all the best
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors responded to my comments and made corrections to the article. I recommend the article for publication in this version.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper suggests for publication.
