Effect of the Welding Thermal Cycle on the Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of TiC Cermet HAZ Using the Gleeble Simulator
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Gleeble simulator is used to analyze the microstructure and mechanical properties of TiC-Cermet Weld.
2. Title seems to be reflecting the contents of the paper.
3. The authors have written the abstract comprehensively.
4. Introduction has been written well, addressing all the keywords.
5. The gap in research is not sufficiently written and highlighted.
6. The objectives were not mentioned in the introduction.
7. XRD patterns are not informative and not discussed properly.
8. Typography is not consistent and alignment issues are also noticed.
9. Grammatical errors as well as spelling mistakes were noticed throughout the text.
10. Figure 4 labels are not clear.
11. Comparative study has not been made in the discussion part.
12. Discussion has to be changed to conclusion.
13. Reference list format is not consisted and related is also missing.
14. Although a few experimental results are presented, information seems to be insufficient. If possible, authors may add additional experimental results related to the topic.
Author Response
- Gleeble simulator is used to analyze the microstructure and mechanical properties of TiC-Cermet Weld.
- Title seems to be reflecting the contents of the paper.
- The authors have written the abstract comprehensively.
- Introduction has been written well, addressing all the keywords.
Response 1: Thanks for your kind encourage, this is very important for me.
- The gap in research is not sufficiently written and highlighted.
Response 2: I added some more discussion about the microstructure, mechanical properties and GND density differences between 4 specimens in the conclusion part.
- The objectives were not mentioned in the introduction.
Response 3: The purpose of this manuscript was revised in the last section of the introduction part t
- XRD patterns are not informative and not discussed properly.
Response 3: The XRD patterns were trying to clarify that there was no phase change during the Gleeble simulation, The discussion part was revised in this section.
- Typography is not consistent and alignment issues are also noticed.
Response 4: The typography has been revised.
- Grammatical errors as well as spelling mistakes were noticed throughout the text.
Response 5: I’m sorry about the inconvenience caused by grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, I will double check with the grammatical and spelling.
- Figure 4 labels are not clear.
Response 6: This part is fixed.
- Comparative study has not been made in the discussion part.
Response 7: I added some more discussion about the microstructure, mechanical properties and GND density differences between 4 specimens in the conclusion part.
- Discussion has to be changed to conclusion.
Response 8: The change has been made.
- Reference list format is not consisted and related is also missing.
Response 9: This was due to the Typography problem, both of the reference list and the typography problem have been fixed in the revised version.
- Although a few experimental results are presented, information seems to be insufficient. If possible, authors may add additional experimental results related to the topic.
Response 10: This manuscript focused on welding simulation of TiC cermet, I will added some more discussion about the present appearances, further experiments are in processing, and I’m looking forward to discussing with you in the future.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review report: Effect of Gleeble simulator welding thermal cycle on Micro-structure and Mechanical Properties of TiC Cermet HAZ. Work is presented well with good publishing quality and can be accepted after following minor corrections:
1. Add quantitative information at the end of the abstract section also strengthen the quality of the writing.
2. Shorten the length of the introduction section and add key published work and try to make a bridge between current and previous published work: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2021.09.002; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-021-06177-2.
3. How was the chemical composition analysed? Also add the mechanical properties.
4. Add reference for each equation. Also add the quantitative value of each term used in equation 1, related to the process.
5. Mention the cooling rate for each condition in graph.
6. The weight percentage of C in EDS is not correct.
7. Add technical discussion related to micrograph.
8. Try to get the relative phase percentage from the XRD.
9. How was the shear strength evaluated?
10. Try to make the relation between shear strength, hardness and microstructure.
11. Microhradness increases from 1 to 4 however a random change in shear strength occurred. Justify?
12. Mark the region which was the point of interest on the fracture surface.
13. Also, in place of discussion, add conclusions.
14. Read the manuscript thoroughly for English and grammar error.
15. Add more references and revise the section accordingly.
Author Response
- Add quantitative information at the end of the abstract section also strengthen the quality of the writing.
Response 1: The abstract part has been revised , and I’m sorry about the inconvenience caused by grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, and I will double check with the grammatical and spelling.
- Shorten the length of the introduction section and add key published work and try to make a bridge between current and previous published work:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2021.09.002;https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-021-06177-2.
Response 2: The results of these two papers as well as some other papers related to these two papers were added in the introduction part.
- How was the chemical composition analysed? Also add the mechanical properties.
Response 3: The measurement of the chemical composition was added in the revised manuscript, the standards of the mechanical properties measurement were mentioned in the materials and methods part.
- Add reference for each equation. Also add the quantitative value of each term used in equation 1, related to the process.
Response 4: The reference for the equation was added, and the parameter related to the experiential were valued in the revised manuscript.
- Mention the cooling rate for each condition in graph.
Response 5: The cooling rate for each condition were added in Fig.1.
- The weight percentage of C in EDS is not correct.
Response 6: As this kind of appearance can be found in previous published papers such as http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmhm.2016.03.012. More discuss was added in this part, please find in the revised manuscript.
- Add technical discussion related to micrograph.
Response 7: More discussion about SEM and TEM characterization was added in the revised manuscript.
- Try to get the relative phase percentage from the XRD.
Response 8: The XRD patterns were trying to clarify that there was no phase change during the Gleeble simulation, The discussion part was revised in this section.
- How was the shear strength evaluated?
Response 9: The shear strength test followed the 《GB/T 40388-2021》 standard .
- Try to make the relation between shear strength, hardness and microstructure.
Response 10: More discuss about the connection between shear strength, hardness and microstructure was added in the conclusion part.
- Microhradness increases from 1 to 4 however a random change in shear strength occurred. Justify?
Response 11: Combined with the bonding phase shear strength increase and the micro-cracks on TiC particles increase, the shear strength of simulated TiC cermet appeared higher than sintered TiC cermet, while decreased with the heat input increased. More discuss was related to this part in the revised manuscript.
- Mark the region which was the point of interest on the fracture surface.
Response 12: The tear ridge and secondary cracks as well as steps feature was added in the fracture sections.
- Also, in place of discussion, add conclusions.
Response 13: The discussion was replaced by conclusion, and more discuss was added in this part.
- Read the manuscript thoroughly for English and grammar error.
Response 14: I’m sorry about the inconvenience caused by grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, I will double check with the grammatical and spelling.
- Add more references and revise the section accordingly.
Response 15: The reference has been revised the results of previous published work: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2021.09.002; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-021-06177-2. as well as some other papers related to these two papers were added in the introduction part.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper entitled "Effect of Gleeble simulator welding thermal cycle on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of TiC Cermet HAZ" is a research article. The article investigates the effect of thermal influence on the mechanical properties of TiC Cermet. The presented information could be valuable for the field. However, there are many drawbacks to improve.
- As a potential reader, I have formed an opinion that the authors heated rods (φ6mm×50mm) of TiC and cooled them at different speeds. Further, their properties were investigated. However, I did not understand where the heat imput values came from and how this experiment is related to welding. The experiment could be understood as an investigation of potential thermal treatment. Moreover, it is well known that heating leads to the saturation of the matrix phase from carbides.
- The particular value of the heat input presented in the abstract is not informative because, at this point, the reader does not know the other investigated values.
- Please indicate what HAZ, GND, EBSD, TEM ... means at their first usage.
- Please indicate the analysis methods in the experimental section.
- It would be particularly helpful to the reader if the authors could present the simulation scheme.
- "K-type thermocouple was welded onto the middle of spacemen" please indicate exact dimensions.
- What is the difference between sample 1, sample 2 ...? The cooling rate, the heat input or both.
- In the caption of Fig. 2, the meaning of pluses should be indicated. Moreover, please provide heat inputs or cooling speeds instead of "sample 1, sample 2...". The same remark for other Figs.
- Table 3. Where are the spots a, b, c, and d?
- Fig. 3. Please indicate what 1#, 2#... mean.
- There are plenty of mistakes in the text which must be corrected.
Author Response
The paper entitled "Effect of Gleeble simulator welding thermal cycle on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of TiC Cermet HAZ" is a research article. The article investigates the effect of thermal influence on the mechanical properties of TiC Cermet. The presented information could be valuable for the field. However, there are many drawbacks to improve.
1. As a potential reader, I have formed an opinion that the authors heated rods (φ6mm×50mm) of TiC and cooled them at different speeds. Further, their properties were investigated. However, I did not understand where the heat input values came from and how this experiment is related to welding. The experiment could be understood as an investigation of potential thermal treatment. Moreover, it is well known that heating leads to the saturation of the matrix phase from carbides.
Response 1: The welding process for TiC cermet Heat Affect Zone could be understood as a thermal treatment, and this research was simulating the HAZs of TiC cermet under different heat input. As the composition of the bonding phase close to manganese steel, according to the previous published works. the welding parameter was selected at 3.4KJ/cm, 6.2KJ/cm and 7.9KJ/cm. The relationship between welding and simulation will be discussed in further experiments.
2. The particular value of the heat input presented in the abstract is not informative because, at this point, the reader does not know the other investigated values.
Response 2: The experiment results related to the heat input as well as a brief conclusion were added in the abstract.
3. Please indicate what HAZ, GND, EBSD, TEM ... means at their first usage.
Response 3: The full meaning of the abbreviations were added in the revised manuscript.
4. Please indicate the analysis methods in the experimental section.resp
Response 4: More details about the analysis methods were added in part 2. Please find in the revised manuscript.
5. It would be particularly helpful to the reader if the authors could present the simulation scheme.
Response 5: The thermal cycle of the simulation was present in Fig.1. I also added a table to clarify the simulation parameter in the revised manuscript.
6. "K-type thermocouple was welded onto the middle of spacemen" please indicate exact dimensions.
Response 6: More details were added in the simulation method description.
7. What is the difference between sample 1, sample 2 ...? The cooling rate, the heat input or both.
Response 7: The difference between each sample is heat input, and the cooling rate was controlled to simulate different heat input in Gleeble 3500. As the cooling rate and the heat input are correspondence.
8. inputs or cooling speeds instead of "sample 1, sample 2...". The same remark for other Figs.
Response 8: The plus regions identified the corresponding EDS point analyses and sample marks were replaced with the heat input. Please find in the revised manuscript.
9. Table 3. Where are the spots a, b, c, and d?
Response 9: a,b,c and d represent the 4 graphs in Fig. 2. this part was revised in the manuscript.
10. Fig. 3. Please indicate what 1#, 2#... mean.
Response 10: This part is fixed in the revised manuscript.
11. There are plenty of mistakes in the text which must be corrected.
Response 11: I’m sorry about the inconvenience caused by grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, I will double check with the grammatical and spelling.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have attempted to make the corrections specified as far as possible.
Reviewer 2 Report
The revision is satisfactory and can be accepted for publication in the present form.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript was substantially improved. I suggest considering its publication.
