Effect of Scanning Electron Beam Pretreatment on Gas Carburization of 22CrMoH Gear Steel
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments to authors
The manuscript entitled, “ Effect of scanning electron beam pretreatment on gas carburization of 22CrMoH gear steel”, determines the optimal electron beam parameters to explore the effect of scanning electron beam pretreatment (SEBP) on gas carburizing efficiency of 22CrMoH gear steel.
Although there are many studies in the literature concerning metal alloys system carburization using SEBP technique to increase the carbon diffusion channels, this work presents two main novelties, 1) it is the first time to my knowledge where the 22CrMoH gear steel is studied regarding the effect of SEBP on gas carburization (GC), 2) the explore of electron beam optimal parameters using finite element analysis for the specific gear steel.
However, there are some points in the experimental results section needed to be revised:
Major revisions
1. The figure 12 is very useful since shows the carbon element weight percentage in three different regions of the sample cross section, under SEBP condition. It is necessary the addition of a second figure with the same characteristics obtained for carburized specimens without SEBP condition. Comparing the three points EDS results for carbon content, the carbon diffusion rate should be increased under electron beam pretreatment.
2. Concerning the figure 14 wear resistance results, the surface friction coefficient of the SEBP sample is lower than that of original sample. The authors must give an explanation since the SEBP sample roughness has increased.
3. In figure 15 crystal defects and dislocations can be seen in the deformed layer of SEBP sample. The authors claim that “…these defects are conductive to the rapid diffusion of active carbon atoms…”, however, only the comparison of the same size layer of original sample with no SEBP will prove the above assertion. So, a second set of two images must be added in figure 15, showing the same sized layer for the original sample without SEBP.
Minor revisions
1. The figure 10 a,b the martensite, carbides, residual austenite and free ferrite are hardly discernible, so the images magnification must be increased at least twice.
2. In the figures 9 and 15, a scale bar must be added.
3. The figure 15 b, is defocus and no clear.
4. The figure 12 caption must be more analytical in figure description.
According to above mentioned comments the manuscript needs major revisions, so as to be acceptable for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAuthor Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment on the article “Effect of scanning electron beam pretreatment on gas carburization of 22CrMoH gear steel” (coatings-2991998) submitted in “Coatings”
In this article , 22CrMoH has been selected for the gear steel material in this work, and the temperature field change of the scanning electron beam has been analyzed to determine the optimal scanning parameters and explored the effect of scanning-electron-beam pretreatment on gas-carburizing efficiency, organizational properties of gear steel, etc..
It seems that this is an iterating article.
-From a mathematical view, brief background information should be given for “Gaussian surface heat source model”.
-How the limits of the integration of (2) changes from “zero” to “infinity” it can be explained.
-Define “eta” in formula (5).
-Some refererences are not regular. For example “ENGINEERING FAILURE ANALYSIS “ , two times.
It can be revised accordingly.
-The paper “Pseudo symmetry curvature conditions on submanifolds of conformal Kenmotsu manifolds. Nonlinear Stud. 29 (2022), no. 2, 457–476.” May be added.
This referee would like to suggest the acceptation of the article in “Coatings “ after revision.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is fine. It may be need minor corrections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. Can the authors demonstrate that they removed traces of the sandpaper completely?
2. Fig.10 (c) and (d). Scale bars (black 200 µm) do not correspond to measured segments (red lines).
3. What were the authors based on when they concluded that several phases had formed in their sample: ferrite, austenite, martensite?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no farther comments. The revised manuscript version can be published as it is.
