Effect of Laser Heat Treatment on the Microstructure and Properties of Alloy 800H
Eitan Tiferet
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Add this reference and take it into consideration:
Materials Science and Engineering A201 (1995) L5-L7 Letter Laser surface alloying of Incoloy 800H with silicon carbide: microstructural aspects S.M. Zhua,b, L. Wang”, G.B. Li”, S.C. Tjongb
Not clear, please rephrase:
Line 134- “After the laser is heat-treated by the laser…”
In “Figure 3. Fracture diagram of alloy sample” it is preferred to use the same magnification rate in the compared samples.
Instead of:
Line 141 (last conclusion): “It shows that the effect of laser heat treatment on grain size is more significant, and the alloy can obtain a more uniform microstructure after heat treatment.”
Please elaborate that the main components are not changed and the contents of Ni and Cr were changed. This could be correlated to the claim that the intra-crystalline chromium carbides are dissolved. Then the authors should correlate it to the Hall-Petch relationship as ref 7 (cited in this paper).
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled Effect of laser heat treatment on microstructure and properties of alloy 800H. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:
Point 1: Line 134- “After the laser is heat-treated by the laser…”
Response 1: It is our negligence and we are sorry about this. According to comment, related content have been improved in manuscript as required.
Point 2: In “Figure 3. Fracture diagram of alloy sample” it is preferred to use the same magnification rate in the compared samples.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion. This is a problem that we did not consider during the test. We only considered the effect. However, due to the long time, the fracture is seriously polluted. We are sorry that we can't complete the same fracture shape. I hope you can understanding. I must pay attention to such problems in the future, thank you very much.
Point 3: Line 141 (last conclusion): “It shows that the effect of laser heat treatment on grain size is more significant, and the alloy can obtain a more uniform microstructure after heat treatment.”
Response 3: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 4: Please elaborate that the main components are not changed and the contents of Ni and Cr were changed. This could be correlated to the claim that the intra-crystalline chromium carbides are dissolved. Then the authors should correlate it to the Hall-Petch relationship as ref 7 (cited in this
Response 4: Modified in manuscript as required.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
2019-03-14
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper entitled "Effect of laser heat treatment on microstructure and properties of alloy 800H” by Zhang et al deals with the laser heat treatment of an iron-nickel based alloy. The influence of the laser treatment on the microstructure, solution of second phases and elongation behaviour was analysed.
Results are in the scope of the Metals journal. These are interesting, but after reading the paper, I have some comments about it:
COMMENTS:
1) In general, English for this work should be improved. Moreover, this paper is hard to follow also from the technical point of view. Explanations are too vague, and no details about how the dissolution of second phases occurs; which was the max. temperature during the processing?. Moreover, a more comprehensive microstructural analysis is required to determine the influence of the laser processing on the microstructure.
2) (Introduction) Introduction should be improved. More details regarding the state of the art on laser heat treatment should be given.
3) (Page 1, Line 41) Which is the material company? Please, provide the details.
4) (Page 2) It is not clear the processes performed on the samples. Were the samples laser treated and then heat treated?
5) (Page 2, Lines 49-53) Why were these laser processing conditions used during the experiments and not other conditions?
6) (Page 2, Lines 49-53) Which was the laser used in the experiments? A CO2 laser? The wavelength for these lasers is 10.6 µm and not 10.6 nm. Which is the light velocity? Please, provide more experimental data: focal length, focus position, focus diameter, velocity/mass flow or volumetric flow for the assist gas.
7) (Page 2, Line 55) Which was the long-lasting performance test device? Which was the test performed in this device? Which was the standard used during the tests? How many replicas were tested?
8) (Page 3, Fig 2) Why does the deformation increase for the heat treated samples at the end of the test?
9) (Page 3, Line 72) Was used a SEM, EDS or both?
10) (Pages 2-3) In section 2.1 microstructure is not analysed, however, the title of this section refers to the effect of the laser treatment on the microstructure. Cross sectional images of the treated areas should be required to analyse the microstructure.
11) (Page 5, Fig. 5) In XRD, some peaks appear. These are associated to Fe, Ni and Cr components; however, it is not clarified which are the phases. Please, associate the peaks to the phases.
12) (Page 6, Table 3) It is asserted that in Table 3 is given the area and the grain size of the strongest diffraction peaks. However, it is not clear what is being analysed. Specimens refers to the peaks? Which data is provided for each specimen?
13) (Page 6) Conclusion section should be rewritten. This section should not be a list of findings. Please, provide the general conclusion of the paper.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled Effect of laser heat treatment on microstructure and properties of alloy 800H. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:
Point 1: In general, English for this work should be improved. Moreover, this paper is hard to follow also from the technical point of view. Explanations are too vague, and no details about how the dissolution of second phases occurs; which was the max. temperature during the processing?. Moreover, a more comprehensive microstructural analysis is required to determine the influence of the laser processing on the microstructure.
Response 1: It is our negligence and we are sorry about this. According to comment, related content have been improved in manuscript as required. Completed the entire article language editing as required, at the same time.
Point 2: (Introduction) Introduction should be improved. More details regarding the state of the art on laser heat treatment should be given.
Response 2: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 3: (Page 1, Line 41) Which is the material company? Please, provide the details.
Response 3: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 4: (Page 2) It is not clear the processes performed on the samples. Were the samples laser treated and then heat treated?
Response 4: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 5: (Page 2, Lines 49-53) Why were these laser processing conditions used during the experiments and not other conditions?
Response 5: The reason for choosing this test condition is mainly to consider the melting point temperature of the alloy.
Point 6: (Page 2, Lines 49-53) Which was the laser used in the experiments? A CO2 laser? The wavelength for these lasers is 10.6 µm and not 10.6 nm. Which is the light velocity? Please, provide more experimental data: focal length, focus position, focus diameter, velocity/mass flow or volumetric flow for the assist gas.
Response 6: We confirm the wavelength for these lasers is 10.6 nm. Other content has been modified in the manuscript. However, we are sorry that the auxiliary gas volume flow was not measured during the test.
Point 7: (Page 2, Line 55) Which was the long-lasting performance test device? Which was the test performed in this device? Which was the standard used during the tests? How many replicas were tested?
Response 7: Test equipment manufacturers have been given in manuscript. Only part of the test content refers to GB/T15248, because the continuous temperature test is still in the research process. Two groups of samples were tested in this device.
Point 8: (Page 3, Fig 2) Why does the deformation increase for the heat treated samples at the end of the test?
Response 8: Because laser heat treatment improves the plasticity of alloy samples, line 110-116 of the article can prove the result.
Point 9: (Page 3, Line 72) Was used a SEM, EDS or both?
Response 9: SEM
Point 10: (Pages 2-3) In section 2.1 microstructure is not analysed, however, the title of this section refers to the effect of the laser treatment on the microstructure. Cross sectional images of the treated areas should be required to analyse the microstructure.
Response 10: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 11: (Page 5, Fig. 5) In XRD, some peaks appear. These are associated to Fe, Ni and Cr components; however, it is not clarified which are the phases. Please, associate the peaks to the phases.
Response 11: Modified in manuscript as required. But I don't know if this is correct, please advise. Thank you.
Point 12: (Page 6, Table 3) It is asserted that in Table 3 is given the area and the grain size of the strongest diffraction peaks. However, it is not clear what is being analysed. Specimens refers to the peaks? Which data is provided for each specimen?
Response 12: Mainly consider the effect of grain size on the crystal surface on metal properties.
Point 13: (Page 6) Conclusion section should be rewritten. This section should not be a list of findings. Please, provide the general conclusion of the paper.
Response 13: Modified in manuscript as required.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
2019-03-14
Reviewer 3 Report
This article is focused on how a new type of high energy density strengthening method, laser heat treatment, mainly used for heat treatment of steel and cast iron, improves the microstructure and mechanical properties of alloy 800H. It concludes that the high temperature performance of alloy 800H is affected by laser heat treatment.
I have the following comments and suggestions for the authors:
line 20 0. Introduction. Please renumber.
line 41, 45, 57. （i), （ii),（iii) Please change to proper numbering.
line 41 The test material is a forged alloy 800H produced by a material company, and a 16 mm steel bar obtained by multiple hot forging treatment of the slab, and the main chemical composition of 800H is shown in Table 1. This sentence should be rephrased, it is not clear. Please give the manufacturer, if possible, or find another expression instead of material company. This is too vague.
row 45 CNC. Please give the name in full first time you use an abbreviation.
row 45 The alloy 800H was made into a cylindrical sample...Please rephrase was made.
line 58 scanning the electron microscopy. Remove the.
line 59 the change of alloying elements in the middle. Please rephrase, this is not good english.
The paper has to be checked for proper english. I am not a native english speaker, but even I can tell that several changes are to be made. I pointed out a few, until page 59, but, being too many, I will not do this any more, after page 56.
line 72 Figure 3 is a fracture profile of a sample without treatment and laser heat treatment. Please rephrase in: a sample without treatment and one with laser heat treatment.
line 73 It shows the necking phenomenon of the two groups is obvious. Please rephrase.
line 91 Xu hongyan. Please use capital letter.
line 129 Table 3. size Please use capital letter.
line 134 After the laser is heat-treated by the laser, the fracture morphology of the tensile specimen exhibits ductile fracture. Please correct this.
Authors contributions are missing. Please add this.
References should be modified to match the journal's demands. Maybe you could more reference, there are only 10, and 8 of them are by chinese authors. It is difficult to believe that there is no international literature regarding the matter. It would be better if the link for reference 8 is replaced with the reference itself.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled Effect of laser heat treatment on microstructure and properties of alloy 800H. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:
Point 1: line 20 0. Introduction. Please renumber.
Response 1: It is our negligence and we are sorry about this. According to comment, related content have been improved in manuscript as required.
Point 2: line 41, 45, 57. （i), （ii),（iii) Please change to proper numbering.
Response 2: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 3: line 41 The test material is a forged alloy 800H produced by a material company, and a 16 mm steel bar obtained by multiple hot forging treatment of the slab, and the main chemical composition of 800H is shown in Table 1. This sentence should be rephrased, it is not clear. Please give the manufacturer, if possible, or find another expression instead of material company. This is too vague.
Response 3: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 4: row 45 CNC. Please give the name in full first time you use an abbreviation.
Response 4: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 5: row 45 The alloy 800H was made into a cylindrical sample...Please rephrase was made
Response 5: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 6: line 58 scanning the electron microscopy. Remove the.
Response 6: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 7: line 59 the change of alloying elements in the middle. Please rephrase, this is not good English.
Response 7: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 8: The paper has to be checked for proper english. I am not a native english speaker, but even I can tell that several changes are to be made. I pointed out a few, until page 59, but, being too many, I will not do this any more, after page 56.
Response 8: Completed the entire article language editing as required.
Point 9: line 72 Figure 3 is a fracture profile of a sample without treatment and laser heat treatment. Please rephrase in: a sample without treatment and one with laser heat treatment.
Response 9: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 10: line 73 It shows the necking phenomenon of the two groups is obvious. Please rephrase.
Response 10: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 11: line 91 Xu hongyan. Please use capital letter.
Response 11: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 12: line 129 Table 3. size Please use capital letter.
Response 12: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 13: line 134 After the laser is heat-treated by the laser, the fracture morphology of the tensile specimen exhibits ductile fracture. Please correct this.
Response 13: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 14:Authors contributions are missing. Please add this.
Response 14: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 15:References should be modified to match the journal's demands. Maybe you could more reference, there are only 10, and 8 of them are by chinese authors. It is difficult to believe that there is no international literature regarding the matter. It would be better if the link for reference 8 is replaced with the reference itself.
Response 15: Modified in manuscript as required
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
2019-03-14
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept in present form
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled Effect of laser heat treatment on microstructure and properties of alloy 800H. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:
Point 1: Accept in present form
I would like to accept in present form.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
2019-03-21
Reviewer 2 Report
In its present state, authors have addressed most of the concerns of the reviewer; however, some points should be improved prior to the final publication of this paper:
(Page 2, Line 50) Please, replace “10.6 nm” with “10.6 µm”
(Page 2, Line 51) Which is the flow rate of air used for cooling? Which is the estimated cooling rate? It is important to determine the rate of cooling as this is going to affect to the microstructure.
(Page 3, Line 87) Please, replace “figure 3(a)” with “figure 4(a)”
(Page 3, Line 90) Please, replace “figure 3(b)” with “figure 4(b)”
(Page 3, Figure 3) Please, mark in the figures the austenite and carbides
Please, improve the conclusions section. As previously commented, this section is not only a collection of points. A general conclusion for this work is required.
English should be revised along the whole manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled Effect of laser heat treatment on microstructure and properties of alloy 800H. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:
Point 1: Page 2, Line 50) Please, replace “10.6 nm” with “10.6 µm”
Response 1: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 2: (Page 2, Line 51) Which is the flow rate of air used for cooling? Which is the estimated cooling rate? It is important to determine the rate of cooling as this is going to affect to the microstructure.
Response 2: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 3: (Page 3, Line 87) Please, replace “figure 3(a)” with “figure 4(a)”
Response 3: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 4: (Page 3, Line 90) Please, replace “figure 3(b)” with “figure 4(b)”
Response 4: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 5: (Page 3, Figure 3) Please, mark in the figures the austenite and carbides
Response 5: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 6: Please, improve the conclusions section. As previously commented, this section is not only a collection of points. A general conclusion for this work is required.
Response 6: Modified in manuscript as required.
Point 7: English should be revised along the whole manuscript.
Response 7: Modified in manuscript as required.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
2019-03-21
