Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

After going through the manuscript critically, I have following observations:

1. Novelty of the work is very marginal

2. Language needs significant improvements. Use of words like 'we' and 'our' should be avoided in technical writing.

3. Chapters should be replaced with sections.

4. Grammatical errors and odd sentence structures are common. For example: .......which makes the repair of bits has great economic and social benefits.

5. Figure 2 is confusing and misleading. It failed to convey the message what authors want to.

6. degree symbol is incorrect; kw should be kW.

7. Supplementary material link needs login and access. It should be available just by clicking on the link.

8. Repaired bit is not characterized. It should be characterized geometrically and actually working condition performance should be analyzed. Mechanical, micro-structural and corrosion behavior may also be reported for the repaired component.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article (electronics-2156304) titled ‘Research on Integrated Automatic System of Laser Cladding for Drilling Bit Repair’ claims to report a method utilizing a software-enabled automatic laser cladding setup for effective repairing of Drill Bit (here polycrystalline diamond compact). Before the manuscript can be published, the following comments must be addressed in detail with explanations:

1-      Please improve English, punctuation, grammar, and sentence flowability. Currently, it is roughly written. Please if possible ask a native speaker to check the language.

2-      Please reframe the title, ‘research’ is a very broad term. Please think of a suitable word such as Development of Integrated.., or something better suitable.

3-      Line 13, abstract: what does even more the originals means? Wrong English.

4-      Line 17, abstract: what do authors mean by universal scheme?

5-      Abstract: state the novelity of the work, is this system developed for the first time? If not, what new knowledge it brings? A line or so in abstract should be added and later explained in detail in introduction.

6-      Line 21, abstract: what do authors mean by improve the effectiveness? What is the measure of effectiveness- mechanical property, substrate- coating adhesion, or efficiency percentage?

7-      Abstract: Include quantified numbers. Such as efficiency improved by how much percentage compared to what? Currently abstract reads as a story without any scientific purpose.

8-      Abstract and introduction: What is the problem of existing non-automated current system?

9-      Refrain from using not very common short forms in the abstract. Such as QT, PC.

10-   Extend Introduction to describe: how the automatic repair is better than conventional laser cladding itself (without robot)? Please cite more references. Currently not much info is given about what efficiency was previously reported and why?

11-   What type of laser were used during reported studies? Usually it’s a diode or Co2 laser in repairing.

12-   Line 46, 47: It is wrong to say ‘laser cladding can heat the substrate of the 46 bit and the coating powder sprayed on the surface of the substrate at the same time…’. The heating depends on the type of laser head and nozzle used. In some cases the powder is heated during in way feeding before the substrate (multiaxial nozzles). Please modify the sentence.

13-   Line 50, Authors should talk about heat affected zone (HAZ). PTAW (arc welding) may result in high HAZ causing more dilution and distortion to the substrate but not in the case of laser cladding. Besides laser cladding that is why offers higher efficiency.

14-   Extend the introduction part (Line 45-53) to talk in more detail about the technology of laser cladding and welding in regards to bonding, dilution, efficiency, automation, mechanical property.

15-   Please extend the introduction section for extensive study in the repairing field. Currently, authors talk solely about drill bit repair. Such as, can this system be used for another repairing such as railways, turbines, etc.

16-   Please include the novelity in the work in second last paragraph of Introduction(Line 108-114).

17-   Line 234-262. Please change the bullets to alphabetic orders.

18-   Please include scale bars in Figure. 6.

19-   Line 189. Please include in brackets after semiconductor laser (diode lasers). The term diode laser is more publically understood.

20-   Line 189, may be LDM4000-100 lasers? Capital LDM

21-   Fig. 8. What is the red line? Please also mention in the caption.

22-   Line 396, May be manufacturing but nor manufacture?

23-   Please re-write the abstract and Conclusion section. They don’t match. There is no word about manufacturing, etc in the abstract section. Besdies, abstract says to determine effectiveness and conclusion has no word about effectiveness.

24-   In abstract author talk about automatic system with detecting and repairing. They conclude that it is feasible but how can it transform the conventional welding or laser cladding process? Can efficiency, production rate, or cost could be improved? Does the repair offer better prospects than non-automated system? Does the author compare any results from Non-automated system?

25-   Line 392. What is each module..? please name them, readers should ingest the results from the conclusion of the work.

26-   Is the current work done for production, manufacturing or drilling repair? If the title holds repair of drill bit, it should conclude on drill bit repair. No word of repair is ever mentioned in conclusion, besides no drill bit or laser cladding.

27-   What is actual demand of production? Machining, repairing, or developing a coating? Please specify.

28-   Line 397. Which data? Obtained from 3d scanner? Or software?

 

29-   Authors talk a lot about future of their work in conclusion. I would recommend them to add a separate subchapter before conclusion about future and discuss their idea, thoughts or any future plans and please REWRITE the abstract with to the point obtained results. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The finding shows novelty and high interest to the readers in AI technology research. The authors have done a great job on the new development of drilling bit repair. It is believed that this research work was at the initital stage to validate the feasibility of the system set up.  The content, figures, tables, and explanation on the work are sufficient.

Some suggestions to improve the paper:

1. The authors could further study the quality and performance of the repair in next stage. This work can be recommended in future work.

2. It is suggested that the authors to improve the writing style and send for proof reading. Some grammatical errors were found in the text. 

3. At the last paragraph in Chapter 1 (introduction), there should be Chapter 5 but not Chapter 6 for conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your corrections. The article (and the english) indeed has improved a lot. I would hereby recommend the publication of this article in its present form.