Response to the comments on creep-induced elemental redistribution at grain boundaries of 304L stainless steel – An experimental evidence for diffusional creep mechanisms

Sandström and He reanalyzed our 304L creep data (Acta Materialia 121137, 2025) at 10 MPa/750 °C and proposed that: (i) primary dislocation creep dominates based on the ϕ-model; (ii) measured creep rates deviate from published 304H data and Coble creep predictions using literature grain boundary (GB) diffusivity; and (iii) creep-induced elemental redistribution (CIER) could be explained by dislocation emission/absorption (DEAA) and GB creep (GBC), as opposed to diffusional creep. In this response, we propose that: (i) the creep behavior at 15 MPa/750 °C—for which we demonstrated CIER—is only partially captured by the ϕ-model; (ii) direct comparison between 304L and 304H creep data is inappropriate due to carbides in 304H, and Coble creep predictions estimated from CALPHAD-based bulk diffusivity span experimental rates; and (iii) CIER exhibits distinct fingerprint for diffusional creep characterized by anisotropy and stress orientation dependence whereas neither DEAA nor GBC have been mechanistically substantiated.