Bead Geometry Prediction Model for 9% Nickel Laser Weldment, Part 1: Global Regression Model vs. Modified Regression Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Your article titled: “Bead geometry prediction model for 9% nickel laser weldment according to various analysis methods (Part-1 : Global regression model vs. Modified regression model)” is aimed at assessing the effect of laser process parameters on dimensions of beads made on steel with 9% Ni. The problem was solved with the use of regression analysis I is the first part of a wider study. In my opinion, the work is valuable from a scientific and practical point of view. Below I present my remarks and comments in the order they appear in the text.

General: Please note that MDPI currently has a different template file format.

Title: I suggest to change: “Bead geometry prediction models for 9% Ni steel laser weldments: Part-1: Global regression model vs. Modified regression model ". It seems to me that the title does not lose its informativeness, but is shorter and gives the exact name of the material.

Affiliations: Please provide the email addresses of all authors

Abstract: “Two models…” (lines 15-17): this sentence is unnecessary: it repeats information.

Line 20: change "elements" to: "parameters".

Introduction: in my opinion it is too short for an article in a reputable journal. I believe that it would be beneficial for the readers to analyze in depth (according to the journal's profile) the process factors: to extend the description of the use of lasers for remelting, welding and cutting materials. Currently, there is even no indication of the most important advantages and disadvantages of laser processes: narrow HAZ, deep penetration, the possibility of making joints from materials that are difficult to weld, joining dissimilar materials, and on the other hand: the need for thorough preparation of surfaces and elements, high costs, high temperature gradient. Please consider using the information contained in the current works: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13204540, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13132930, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13112653. Thanks to this, it will be possible (in my opinion) to complete the list of references.

Add spaces before the parentheses with citations.

Line 56: Fix a typo in "lack of fusion".

Line 63: please clearly state the purpose: proposes to combine sentences from lines: 63-68. It is also necessary to add information that this is the first part of a two-part? work (from lines 176-178)

Chapter 2:

Figure 1 is too small. Please mark (by red dotted rectangular frame?) the scopes of work described in part I and part II on the diagram.

Line 78: Replace "There are" with "assumed".

Line 85: correct typos in the title

Lines 89.90: This sentence is not needed. Please add the dimensions of the samples here: move the sentence from lines 121, 122.

Table 1: what is the data source?

Lines 99, 100: This sentence is not needed.

According to the journal’s guidelines, all devices used must be labeled with the name and address of the manufacturer.

Add spaces before units.

Table 2: correct the mistake in the table caption.

Lines 108-120: the description is convoluted: please simplify it: e.g. a information that 100 tests have been made appears here three times.

Table 3: The text states that 100 laser tests were made. It is not clear how the parameter associations were selected for each trial. I propose to add an input table to the article as a supplementary material. Table 3 gives the number of cases: I can guess that the step was the same (0.5 kW? How many m/min ?, 10 mm), but please add it. On what basis were the ranges of input data variables selected?

Have VT tests of specimens been carried out? From the point of view of the welding quality system, the analysis should not include data that do not meet the adopted VT criterion.

Line 137: change: "part" to: "area".

Line 140: Description is not as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 3: I believe this figure needs a reference.

Line 158: Correct a typo in the title.

Line 162: optimal? Should be: optic or light microscope.

Line 167: what does “three types of bead shape” mean? three areas of bead?

Chapter 3:

 Lines 181-183: this sentence is not needed.

Lines 194-195: this was given before.

Equation (3): a square part is missing.

Equations: check if the coefficients are correct, especially: (8), (10)

Line 253: Why is the value set to 0.2? It's a big value...

Line 259: correct the numbering of Table 4.

Equation (11): the second Df should have the second power.

Equation (12): there is also a mistake here: there is two S.

Figures 5-7: I suggest you add the model number in the figure caption or in the figures.

To the discussion of the results, prease add the verification of the normality of the residuals distribution, preferably with the Shapiro-Wilk test. I suggest adding a description of the limitations of the applicability of the proposed models.

Chapter 4: Title: "Conclusions".

The manuscript is missing Authors contributions, funding, etc. There are two times "References".

Format the references according to the journal's guidelines. I believe that an article of this type should contain about 25 recent (last two years) references. See also other MDPI journals: Materials, Metals, Applied Sciences, which publish papers on laser processes. Pay attention to the bibliographic description, e.g.

[10]: it should read: Piekarska, W., & Goszczyńska-Króliszewska, D. (2016). Prediction of structure and mechanical properties of welded joints using analytical methods. Procedia Engineering, 136, 82-87.

[11]: the correct title of the journal is: The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology.

[12]: the correct title of the journal is Applied Sciences.

Please cite mainly English-language works that are readily available.

Author Response

Thanks for the in-depth review, please check the attached document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article “Bead geometry prediction model for 9% nickel laser weldment according to various analysis methods (Part-1 : Global regression model vs. Modified regression model)” is carelessly prepared, there are many editorial corrections.

Line 85 – Merterals??

The quality of figure 1 is poor. In fact, the figure adds nothing to the paper and could be deleted.

Line 140 There is: Figure 2 and it should be: Figure 3.

Line 157 There is: Figure 3 and it should be: Figure 4.

Line 158 Please correct the numbering and names of the subsections.

Line 164 and line 171- Figure 4??  Figure 4 is in line 157 already. Correct the numbering of all figures in the article.

Line 238 Incorrect equation numbers used.

Line 295 Please verify and correct the chapter and subsections numbers.

Line 437 Funding:   There is no information about financing. If there was no financing, please remove the entry.

Line 439 and line 440 References - Double record.

The conclusions only summarize the results obtained. There are no specific conclusions. Please complete this chapter with conclusions resulting from the analysis of the obtained results.

References - The bibliography should be improved according to the recommendations of the journal.

The article is not suitable for publication in its current form, it must be corrected.

Author Response

Thanks for the in-depth review, please check the attached document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for your responses and introducing the proposed changes to the manuscript. Please pay attention to typographical errors: inserting spaces before units, correct spelling of authors' names in the references section, eg: [11], [12]. In reference: [13] -the correct notation is: "Kik, T.". Please also replace: "Journal of materials" with "Materials".

According to the MDPI guidelines, journal titles should be abbreviated.

Good luck!

Reviewer