The Numerical Simulation and Experimental Investigation of the Laser Quenching Process of GCr15 Joint Bearings
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper reports the laser quenching effects on surface properties of GCr15 knuckle bearing where the research scope is appropriate to be published in Coatings. After reading this manuscript, there are some parts need clarifications or improvements before it is accepted for publication.
-The second paragraph in Introduction is too lengthy. Suggest to split it into 2 or 3 paragraphs.
-The “Materials and Methodology” part is not written in detail. It is important for repeatability.
-The brand and operating conditions of instruments or tools used should be mentioned.
-Line 92: How the chemical composition of GCr15 bearing inner ring material was determined?
-Figures 3, 5-12: The captions have to be revised so that every figures are described and mentioned in the captions. Without proper captions, it is hard to understand the figures.
-Figure 5a: The graph shows standard deviation. How many runs of the analysis for the measurements?
-Table 2: Should be “Specific heat capacity”
-Line 222: Should cite as Wang et al. Please check the rest of the manuscript.
-The results should also be discussed together with the previous literatures.
-Sometimes the authors used seconds, and sometimes s. Please standardize it. Also, some typos are found in the manuscript. Please proofread again.
-Line 358: The curves in Figure 10b show the temperature curve? Please correct it.
-Line 380-383: Please adjust the paragraph justification.
-Figure 12: How were the SEM images obtained? No description in “Materials and Methodology”.
-Again, the results lack of discussion. More elaboration is needed with argument from literature
-Conclusion should be written in paragraph form. Future research direction and impact of the study should be added at the end of the conclusion.
-Many inconsistencies are found in the reference format.
Author Response
Dear reviewers, thank you for your valuable guidance. Undoubtedly, it has greatly improved the academic character of this article, so we have made a lot of revisions to it. The following is the specific situation.
Comments1.-The second paragraph in Introduction is too lengthy. Suggest to split it into 2 or 3 paragraphs.
Answer: Your opinion is quite reasonable. The second paragraph of the introduction is too long; it has been broken up into three small paragraphs.
Comments2.-The “Materials and Methodology” part is not written in detail. It is important for repeatability.
Answer: Your opinion is quite reasonable, we have added some more detailed instructions in the part of “Materials and Methodology”. The changes in this part has been marked in yellow.
Comments3.-The brand and operating conditions of instruments or tools used should be mentioned.
Answer: The model and manufacturer of the equipment used in this paper are supplemented. The factors such as temperature, humidity and pressure in the test process are also explained. Then have all marked in yellow.
Comments4.-Line 92: How the chemical composition of GCr15 bearing inner ring material was determined?
Answer: The material composition of the GCr15 bearing inner ring used in this paper is obtained from the manufacturer (Fujian Longxi Bearing (Group) Co.,Ltd., Fujian, China) of the bearing. And we haven't done any further testing with it. (The first paragraph of section 2.1)
Comments5.-Figures 3, 5-12: The captions have to be revised so that every figures are described and mentioned in the captions. Without proper captions, it is hard to understand the figures.
Answer: Your opinion is quite reasonable,to make these figures easier to understand, we have added proper captions to most of them (the captions of figure12 are given in the upper left corner of it).
Comments6.-Figure 5a: The graph shows standard deviation. How many runs of the analysis for the measurements?
Answer: Thank you for your reminding. Approximately 10 hardness measurements were made in the hardened zone for each sample obtained under each condition. (The second paragraph of section 3.1)
Comments7.-Table 2: Should be “Specific heat capacity”
Answer: Thank you for your reminding. We have modified it in the paper.
Comments8.-Line 222: Should cite as Wang et al. Please check the rest of the manuscript.
Answer: Your opinion is quite reasonable, we have modified it in the paper. (The fifth paragraph of section 3.1)
Comments9.-The results should also be discussed together with the previous literatures.
Answer: Your opinion is quite reasonable. We have added some related discussion in the paper. (The fifth paragraph of section 3.1)
Comments10.-Sometimes the authors used seconds, and sometimes s. Please standardize it. Also, some typos are found in the manuscript. Please proofread again.
Answer: Your opinion is quite reasonable. We have modified time unit to be consistently and corrected some typos in the manuscript.
Comments11.-Line 358: The curves in Figure 10b show the temperature curve? Please correct it.
Answer: Your opinion is quite reasonable. Figure 10b is the peak temperature change curve drawn according to the peak temperature of node A~ A0.7. And we have corrected it in the paper. And, with the addition of Figure 4, the original Figure 10 has become Figure 11.
Comments12.-Line 380-383: Please adjust the paragraph justification.
Answer: OK, I have modified the format and alignment of the manuscript downloaded in the journal as much as possible.
Comments13.-Figure 12: How were the SEM images obtained? No description in “Materials and Methodology”.
Answer: The SEM images were obtained with a scanning electron microscopy(SEM, JSM-IT800, JEOL Ltd., Beijing, China). There is a corresponding explanation at the end of the second paragraph of section 2.2.1 of the article
Comments14.-Again, the results lack of discussion. More elaboration is needed with argument from literature
Answer: Your opinion is quite reasonable. We add a discussion at the end of chapter 3.
Comments15.-Conclusion should be written in paragraph form. Future research direction and impact of the study should be added at the end of the conclusion.
Answer: OK, we have adjusted the structure of the conclusion, and, added some suggestions on the application of laser quenching technology in this part.
Comments16.-Many inconsistencies are found in the reference format.
Answer: Your opinion is quite reasonable. We have unified the format of the references.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Please, describe more precisely scientific contribution and novelty of your paper in abstract and introduction especially in comparison with other papers and authors. Please, give in abstract short review of industrial and practical significance of your paper.
- Please, if possible add diagram flow that will more clearly present methodology and investigations steps of your article.
- Please, describe more detailed how did you define experimental parameters values. What kind of experimental plan you applied? Please, give additional table with process parameters values that were kept constant in experimentations.
- Please, in Figures titles give meanings and explanations for all presented subfigures a), b), c), d)…
- Please, add more details regarding FEA simulations settings: parameters, constraints etc.
- Please, if possible add statistical measures such as coefficient of determination, absolute percentage error, mean absolute percentage error etc. that will prove simulation results.
- Please, mention in Conclusions possible constraints as well as research gaps for further investigations.
Author Response
Dear reviewers, thank you for your valuable guidance. Undoubtedly, it has greatly improved the academic character of this article, so we have made a lot of revisions to it. The following is the specific situation.
Comments 1.- Please, describe more precisely scientific contribution and novelty of your paper in abstract and introduction especially in comparison with other papers and authors. Please, give in abstract short review of industrial and practical significance of your paper.
Answer: OK, We have added some introduction about the research value and purpose of this article in the beginning of the abstract, and some discussion about the innovation and research value of this research in the end of the introduction. And, at the end of the introduction, some differences between this paper and other researchers are introduced, as well as the values of this paper for the popularization and application of laser quenching technology.
Comments 2.- Please, if possible add diagram flow that will more clearly present methodology and investigations steps of your article.
Answer: OK. We have added figure 4 as the methodological framework of this study.
Comments 3.- Please, describe more detailed how did you define experimental parameters values. What kind of experimental plan you applied? Please, give additional table with process parameters values that were kept constant in experimentations.
Answer: OK. We have added a table for test parameter (Table2). In addition, some experimental parameters are also explained in more detail.
Comments 4.- Please, in Figures titles give meanings and explanations for all presented subfigures a), b), c), d)…
Answer: Your opinion is quite reasonable,to make these figures easier to understand, we have added proper captions to most of them (the captions of figure13 are given in the upper left corner of it).
Comments 5.- Please, add more details regarding FEA simulations settings: parameters, constraints etc.
Answer: OK, we have already added more informations about the load conditions and constraints of the numerical model in section 2.2.2 of the article.
Comments 6.- Please, if possible add statistical measures such as coefficient of determination, absolute percentage error, mean absolute percentage error etc. that will prove simulation results.
Answer: OK. We habe added the mean error of the numerical model’s temperature prediction results at the end of chapter 2. As well as the error rates for the predicted values of the width of Enhanced area and the Tempering area, at the end of section 3.2.1.
Comments 7.- Please, mention in Conclusions possible constraints as well as research gaps for further investigations.
Answer: OK. We have added some suggestions on the application of laser quenching technology in the Conclusions.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Authors have addressed all marked concerns.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is recommended that further experiments be performed. Furthermore, the figures should be improved. The authors should restructure the paper, rethink what they want to convey with this paper, read more literature, and rewrite the paragraphs more carefully.
Here are a few comments (minor mistakes):
There are spelling mistakes, and many sentences should be rephrased.
In the abstract, split long sentences into shorter ones for better readability and clarity. Make sure there is a space between the values and the units, and correct this throughout the text. For example, “600W to 1100W” should be “600 W to 1100 W.”
“As can be seen from the above figure,” the authors should always cite figure numbers.
The dimension units are missing from Figure 1. The scale is missing from Figure 3a. In Figure 7, “a” and “b” are not written on the figure, but the text cites 7a and 7b. Are the authors sure the green rectangle corresponds to Figure 7b? There are two Figure 7s in the draft.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe english should be improved throughout the text
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter carefully reading the content of the reviewed manuscript, I regret to say that it does not meet the standard of a scientific article aspiring to be published in the Coatings journal. I read the problem presentation as a preliminary analysis of the first technical tests of laser treatment of the bearing surface. The manuscript's content lacks any attempts at a deeper explanation of the changes in the phase structure, and the interpretations given by the authors are more speculative than based on research facts. I think that the authors, even based on the SEM documentation presented in the manuscript (which is quite poor), should have used it better to associate their interpretational conclusions with the morphological image obtained in the SEM (why such a small magnification, which gives a macro image). The authors completely omitted the discussion of the genesis of the transition layer (below the laser-hardened layer). However, it seemed after reading the Introduction that this could be one of the key problems raised in the research. It also seems that the manuscript, in some possible subsequent versions, would require thorough linguistic and stylistic correction before being sent to the editor. In this context, the remark that the captions under the figures are not very communicative and that Figure 7 contains incorrect markings are only obvious suggestions.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Relevant note given above.
