Peer review report 1 on “Analysis of Size and Temperature Effects in the Ductile to Brittle Transition Region of Ferritic Steels”

Engineering Fracture Mechanics 133 Supplement 1 (2015) 251–252

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Fracture Mechanics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech

Peer Review Report

Peer review report 1 on ‘‘Analysis of Size and Temperature Effects in the Ductile to Brittle Transition Region of Ferritic Steels”

Original Submission Recommendation Major amendments Required Comments to the author The master curve is an approach that is important for the assessment of nuclear power lifetime. The subject is of prime importance for safety. If I read correctly (see later comments) the main conclusion one can draw from the article is that with the dataset analyzed in the paper, the authors find another master curve shape than the one used in today’s safety analyses. This of course would have some impact. If that is what the authors want to express, they should review the history of the master curve (MC) approach. In particular the assomption used in the MC approach should be exposed. No article beyond 1994 is mentioned, the bibliography seems outdated. The MC approach rests on a cleavage fracture mode for all samples. The possibility of inter granular cracking is not mentioned. Was it investigated in the dataset used here? How does the dataset (or the material used in it) compares with the other dataset used for the MC approach? Is the effect of changing the shape function in the MC approach significant on the T0 temperature? The conclusion is not clear but consist of a list of summary points. The main object of the article is not stated clearly in the conclusion. The authors should add perspectives. There is a low level of English in many parts rendering reading the article a difficult exercise. Can the article be checked by a native English speaker? _ Change 1T for 1T-C(T) in the abstract & the text _ First sentence of abstract is too long and not clear _ for completeness, can the authors give the 2 parameters Weibull formula in the introduction? _ in English one uses the following conjunction: neither . . . nor but not nor . . . nor. It appears several times. _ 3.2: these sentences are not correct: _ ‘‘the sets are most around 30 tests” _ ‘‘bKj values resulted to 2 for sets of 1T specimens” _ 4: these sentences are not correct: _ ‘‘the prediction of T0 resulted good for most” _ ‘‘being necessary the censoring of the data” _ define MC in nomenclature _ in material and method section: there is a confusing + symbol between the cross and the filled square. It should be replaced by something else, + being a symbol used in data plotting. _ Missing scale bars on figure 4

DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.09.041

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.09.044

252

Peer Review Report / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 133 Supplement 1 (2015) 251–252

First Revision Recommendation Publish after minor amendments Comments to the author The re-submitted article clarified the issues at stake and the implications of this new Master Curve data fit. I recommend publication. The authors should indicate how to find references 16 and 21 (ECF proceeding?). If there are no proceedings, it should be removed. Reviewer Thierry Auger, Ph.D. Research scientist CNRS MSSMAT Ecole Centrale Paris Grande Voie des Vignes Chatenay-Malabry, 92290 France