Femtosecond Laser Texturization on Coated Steel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript, three coatings of 1.2344 steel were chosen and the laser speed and the distance between laser lines were varied to obtain laser textures under different conditions. There is a clear trend between texturization depth and laser fluence. A morphological analysis of all samples was made by SEM and AFM. The periodicity，far-range order, and the surface roughness of textures were analyzed and evaluated. However, some of the irregularities were found and there were still some obvious mistakes left in the manuscript. Following questions should be responded in detailed.

1. Please check carefully the structure and writing of the statements in the manuscript for completeness and correctness. For example, structure of “with values between 3000 and 4000 mm/s and 0.001-0.01mm respectively” on page 2 is incomplete.

2.It is suggested to add sample picture and experimental device diagram or schematic diagram.

3. “In this work plain uncoated 1.2344 steel with and without Chromium Nitride (CrN) and Diamond-Like Carbon (DLC) coatings were used in experiments.” in the abstract maybe state incorrectly.

4. It is recommended that the units of variables in the manuscript remain uniform.

5. Please add the physical meaning represented through the letter parameters.

6. The clarity of the images does not reflect the relevance to the content expression well. It is recommended to replace the picture with higher clarity.

7. The title does not match the content in section 2.3.

8. The logic and relevance between the contents should be strengthened.

Author Response

Please check attached document. I would like to apologize for the late response due to problems at coating company Flubetech.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

COMMENTS TO AUTHOR:

 This work reports a femtosecond laser technique on coated steel. The work is well designed and the results might have comparatively strong practicality in engineering. I suggest publication of this manuscript in coatings after minor revisions.

 1. The background introduction need to be improved, more relevant references need be provided.

2. English expression needs to be improved.

Author Response

Please check attached document. I would like to apologize for the late response due to problems at coating company Flubetech.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors of this work tried to experimentally study the influence of some parameters such as laser speed and the distance between laser lines while coating the 1.2344 steel with Chromium Nitride (CrN) and Diamond-Like Carbon (DLC) coatings. They claimed that there is a clear trend between the texturization depth and laser conditions, due to that fact, with laser conditions the depth and which layer of the coating will be coated. Polishing conditions under a soft fluence of laser were found to obtain a polishing of the DLC coating.

I have some comments on this work:

1. In the introduction section, please provide more researches that have been done in this field in order to provide sufficient background and relevant references. Sufficient information about the previous study findings should be added and compared with the present study so that the readers could follow the present study rationale and procedures. 

2. Please specify your novelty.

3. From line 60 to 67 (section 2.1) - The authors should explain why they have chosen the CrN, MS-PVD, DLC coating. They must add some explanation about the benefits of these coatings and used methods.

4. In Figure 4. Please specify which picture is refer to (a), (b) and (c). 

5. In Figure 5. Please specify which picture is refer to (a), (b) and (c). 

6. Section 3.3. It would be better if the author could show the AFM detail for other samples, compare them and explain about their differences.

7. Section 3.4. Please provide SEM for all samples of compare them. 

8. Section 3.5. Please provide the result of laser polishing (Ra) for all samples and compare them.

Author Response

Please check attached document. I would like to apologize for the late response due to problems at coating company Flubetech.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript studies laser texturing to fabricate LIPSS on uncoated and coated steels with different texturing variables. SEM, AFM and 2D-FFT are used to analyze the laser-induced structures. Some revisions are required for the manuscript:

1.       The literature review for LIPSS is not well written. There are many published literatures that have clearly discussed the formation mechanism for LIPSS. Please refer to: Micromachines 2014, 5(4), 1219-1253; Laser & Photonics Reviews 2020, 14(10), 2000215.

2.       The significance of this work is not clearly discussed. Why LIPSS should be used for plastic injection molding? Please provide more discussions.

3.       Why are CrN and DLC coatings selected in this work? Please explain.

4.       How are the laser scanning speed and lateral overlapping determined? Please explain.

5.       The manuscript lacks of discussion for the formation mechanism of the laser-induced structures shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Please provide more discussions.

6.       In 3.5, what is the surface roughness of the original sample?

7.       There are many grammatical and spelling errors throughout the manuscript. For example, Line 25, “laser structures” should be “laser-induced structures”; Line 80, “perform the texture” should be “generate the texture”; Line 105, “trough” should be “through”; Line 240, “is showed” should be “is shown”; Line 260, “released” should be “reduced”. Please carefully check the whole manuscript and correct all typos and errors.

Author Response

Please check attached document. I would like to apologize for the late response due to problems at coating company Flubetech.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have answered to the all questions clearly.

So, in my opinion, the paper is suitable to be published in Coatings in present form.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have addressed the reviewer's comments and now the manuscript can be accepted for publication.