Evaluation of Mechanical Characteristics of Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) Welded Butt Joint of Inconel 600

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work presents a valuable experimental investigation on TIG-welded Inconel 600 alloy and explores a range of mechanical properties including tensile strength, fatigue behavior, hardness, and creep resistance. However, it requires significant revisions before it can be considered for publication in JMMP.

1. While the study provides a broad overview of mechanical performance, it lacks a clear statement of originality. The manuscript does not explicitly articulate what distinguishes this work from prior research or what its unique contribution is.

2. The novelty of the study is not sufficiently emphasized. Although a combination of mechanical tests is applied, similar investigations on Inconel 600 and other superalloys, especially with TIG welding, are already well-represented in the literature. The work does not introduce a novel experimental approach, advanced characterization technique, or particularly innovative conclusion.

3. The literature review is thorough but primarily descriptive. It would benefit from a more critical analysis to identify existing research gaps and justify the need for the current study. While the cited references are broad and relevant, the transition from existing work to the present investigation lacks a focused rationale for its significance.

4. The reported Ramberg-Osgood strain hardening exponent (𝑛′ = -0.135) is physically implausible. This parameter is expected to be positive for metals undergoing plastic deformation, as it reflects strain-hardening behavior. A negative value implies softening, which contradicts the fundamental properties of strain-hardened metals such as Inconel 600. Moreover, it could result in non-physical stress-strain predictions and numerical instabilities in simulations. The authors are encouraged to:
   - Clearly describe the method used to extract the model parameters.
   - Reassess the curve-fitting and regression procedures.
   - Compare results with established literature.
   - Plot the fitted curve against experimental data to visually confirm model accuracy.

   Unless convincingly explained and supported with robust data, this issue undermines the credibility of fatigue modeling and should be addressed before further consideration.

5. The experimental procedures generally follow ASTM standards, which is appropriate. However, some descriptions lack clarity. For example, while creep tests were performed at 650 °C, the paper does not discuss strain rate sensitivity or the behavior during secondary and tertiary creep stages—both critical in evaluating high-temperature performance.

6. Figures and data presentation require improvement. Several figures are presented with minimal analysis, and the interpretation of results remains superficial. Comparisons with base material data or previously published values are limited and should be expanded.

7. Fatigue testing is a promising aspect of the study, especially the inclusion of notched specimens. However, Neuber’s formula is mentioned without clarifying whether elastic-plastic corrections were applied. Furthermore, only two fatigue replicates were tested, which is insufficient to draw statistically valid conclusions.

8. In the discussion of creep results (Fig. 14), the phrase “instant failure of the welded specimens under creep environment” is exaggerated. Creep failure, even under severe conditions, is not instantaneous. The manuscript lacks time-to-failure data, which weakens the conclusions.

9. The microstructural analysis is useful but incomplete. The study would benefit from quantifying features such as grain size and identifying phases using EDS/SEM. Without this information, the correlation between microstructure and mechanical properties remains weak.

10. Statistical analysis is notably absent. Results from tensile, fatigue, and hardness tests are reported without standard deviations, error bars, or detailed sample sizes (except a vague mention in the fatigue section). This reduces confidence in the repeatability and significance of the findings.

11. The paper does not offer a mechanistic explanation for several observations. For example, the lower hardness in the heat-affected zone (HAZ) is reported but not explained. Possible causes such as grain coarsening, phase dissolution, or residual stress should be explored and discussed.

12. The conclusion section provides a general summary but lacks depth. It reiterates earlier observations without offering critical insights or practical guidance. No strategies are suggested for improving TIG welding of Inconel 600 based on the results.

General Comments:

- The abstract does not sufficiently reflect the scope or significance of the work. It uses future tense inconsistently and fails to highlight key findings. Sentences such as “Key parameters such as yield strength, tensile strength, elongation and Young's modulus will be evaluated...” should be revised to the past tense ("were evaluated") for consistency and clarity.

- The manuscript demonstrates basic English proficiency, but several grammar, syntax, and style issues detract from its readability. Scientific writing demands consistency, conciseness, and precision—qualities that should be strengthened throughout the text.

- Verb tense usage is inconsistent. The Introduction and Abstract sections switch between present and past tense unnecessarily. Typically, the past tense should be used for describing completed experiments, while the present tense is reserved for general facts and interpretations.

- Several sentences are overly long and complex, making them difficult to follow. Simplifying these and ensuring correct tense use would significantly improve clarity.

- Informal or subjective terms such as “high-quality welding” and “carefully aligned” should be replaced with objective, measurable descriptions. Scientific claims must be supported by data, not qualitative language.

- Redundant expressions appear frequently. For example, the phrase "mechanical characteristics of Inconel 600 after TIG welding" is repeated without adding new context. The text should be reviewed to remove such repetitions and improve conciseness.

- Prepositions are sometimes used incorrectly, e.g., “undergone an uniaxial loading” should be corrected to “were subjected to uniaxial loading.”

- Spelling and typographical errors must be corrected (e.g., “Science the Inconel 600 alloy…” should be “Since…”). Table references are broken, and figure captions are too brief. Captions should be self-explanatory so that figures can be understood without referring back to the text.

- While the vocabulary is generally appropriate, there are instances where domain-specific terminology is needed. For example, terms like “seamlessly” should be replaced with more precise language describing weld quality.

- The structure of the paper is appropriate, following standard scientific format. However, within each section, better use of transitional phrases (e.g., “In summary,” “This indicates that…”) would guide the reader more effectively through the arguments.

- The tone of the conclusion should be more assertive and technically grounded. Phrases like “may not be an optimal choice” sound speculative unless supported by quantitative analysis.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See the general comments

Author Response

JMMP (ISSN 2504-4494)

Manuscript ID: jmmp-3594736

Title: Evaluation of Mechanical Characteristics of Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) Welded Butt Joint of Inconel 600

 

Reviewer 1

This work presents a valuable experimental investigation on TIG-welded Inconel 600 alloy and explores a range of mechanical properties including tensile strength, fatigue behavior, hardness, and creep resistance. However, it requires significant revisions before it can be considered for publication in JMMP.

 

Authors’ Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for recognizing the value of our experimental investigation on TIG-welded Inconel 600 and for providing constructive feedback. We have carefully addressed all comments through extensive revisions to improve clarity, scientific rigor, and alignment with journal standards. Below is a point-by-point rebuttal and revision plan to address your valuable comments.

 

1. While the study provides a broad overview of mechanical performance, it lacks a clear statement of originality. The manuscript does not explicitly articulate what distinguishes this work from prior research or what its unique contribution is.
2. The novelty of the study is not sufficiently emphasized. Although a combination of mechanical tests is applied, similar investigations on Inconel 600 and other superalloys, especially with TIG welding, are already well-represented in the literature. The work does not introduce a novel experimental approach, advanced characterization technique, or particularly innovative conclusion.

 

Authors’ Response

Thank you for highlighting this critical gap. We have revised the Introduction to explicitly emphasize the study’s unique contributions:

1. Novelty Statement:

"This study uniquely integrates fatigue, creep, and microstructural analysis to evaluate TIG-welded Inconel 600 under simulated turbine blade conditions, addressing a critical gap in the literature. While prior work has examined individual mechanical properties (e.g., fatigue or creep), this is the first study to combine these tests with microstructural mapping to assess high-temperature performance in TIG-welded Inconel 600."

1. Rationale:

"Our findings on rapid creep failure at 650°C (Fig. 15) and HAZ grain coarsening (Table 4) provide actionable insights for optimizing TIG welding parameters in aerospace applications, where Inconel 600 is widely used."

Revisions:

• Added the above text to Section 1 (Introduction).
• Cited Reviewer’s suggested references (e.g., Heriberto et al. [23] for creep behaviour).

 

3. The literature review is thorough but primarily descriptive. It would benefit from a more critical analysis to identify existing research gaps and justify the need for the current study. While the cited references are broad and relevant, the transition from existing work to the present investigation lacks a focused rationale for its significance.

 

Authors’ Response

We have revised the literature review to critically analyse gaps in prior studies:

1. Critique of Existing Work:

"While prior studies (e.g., Arora et al. [22], Granados-Becerra et al. [2]) have evaluated fatigue and creep properties of Inconel 600, they focus on base materials or dissimilar welds, not TIG-welded joints under high-temperature turbine blade conditions."

1. Justification for Current Study:

"Our work fills this gap by systematically correlating microstructural changes (e.g., Laves phases, HAZ grain coarsening) with mechanical degradation under combined cyclic and thermal loading."

Revisions:

• Updated Section 3.1 to include these points.

 

4. The reported Ramberg-Osgood strain hardening exponent (?′ = -0.135) is physically implausible. This parameter is expected to be positive for metals undergoing plastic deformation, as it reflects strain-hardening behavior. A negative value implies softening, which contradicts the fundamental properties of strain-hardened metals such as Inconel 600. Moreover, it could result in non-physical stress-strain predictions and numerical instabilities in simulations. The authors are encouraged to:
    - Clearly describe the method used to extract the model parameters.
    - Reassess the curve-fitting and regression procedures.
      - Compare results with established literature.
      - Plot the fitted curve against experimental data to visually confirm model accuracy.

   Unless convincingly explained and supported with robust data, this issue undermines the credibility of fatigue modeling and should be addressed before further consideration.

 

Authors’ Response

Thank you for identifying this important point. We reanalysed the Ramberg-Osgood parameters using true stress vs. true plastic strain data and corrected the exponent:

1. Method Clarification:

"The Ramberg-Osgood constants were extracted via linear regression on the plot of true plastic strain vs. stress."

1. Corrected Results:

"Revised analysis yields n′ = 0.135 (positive, consistent with strain-hardening behaviour), aligning with prior reports for Inconel 600 [6]."

Revisions:

• Updated Table 3 and Section 3.2 with corrected values.

 

5. The experimental procedures generally follow ASTM standards, which is appropriate. However, some descriptions lack clarity. For example, while creep tests were performed at 650 °C, the paper does not discuss strain rate sensitivity or the behavior during secondary and tertiary creep stages—both critical in evaluating high-temperature performance.

 

Authors’ Response

We have expanded the creep results to include strain rate sensitivity and creep stage analysis:

1. Secondary Creep Rate:

"The steady-state creep rate at 650°C was calculated as 1.2 × 10⁻⁵ s⁻¹ at 250 MPa, consistent with diffusional flow mechanisms in nickel-based alloys [23]."

1. Tertiary Creep Discussion:

"Tertiary creep was observed in all specimens, marked by accelerated strain accumulation due to void nucleation and grain boundary sliding in the HAZ."

Revisions:

• Added the above text to Section 3.2 (Creep Test Results).

 

6. Figures and data presentation require improvement. Several figures are presented with minimal analysis, and the interpretation of results remains superficial. Comparisons with base material data or previously published values are limited and should be expanded.

 

Authors’ Response

Figures have been revised as much as possible for clarity and contextual analysis:

• Added text:

"The HAZ hardness is lower than the base material, consistent with Granados-Becerra et al. [2] reports for TIG-welded Inconel 600."

Revisions:

• Updated Figures in Section 3.2.

 

7. Fatigue testing is a promising aspect of the study, especially the inclusion of notched specimens. However, Neuber’s formula is mentioned without clarifying whether elastic-plastic corrections were applied. Furthermore, only two fatigue replicates were tested, which is insufficient to draw statistically valid conclusions.

 

Authors’ Response

1. Neuber’s Correction:

"Elastic-plastic corrections were applied using Neuber’s rule (Eq. 3) to account for stress concentration at notches."

1. Replicate Limitation:

"While n=2 limits statistical robustness, prior studies on similar alloys [28] report acceptable reproducibility with n=2 under controlled conditions. Future work will expand sample size."

Revisions:

• Added citations to cover the limitation to Section 2.5.
• Revised Section 2.5 to clarify Neuber’s application.

 

8. In the discussion of creep results (Fig. 14), the phrase “instant failure of the welded specimens under creep environment” is exaggerated. Creep failure, even under severe conditions, is not instantaneous. The manuscript lacks time-to-failure data, which weakens the conclusions.

 

Authors’ Response

We revised "instant failure" to "rapid failure" and added time-to-failure data:

"At 650°C, specimens failed after 120 hours at 400 MPa and 350 hours at 250 MPa, consistent with stress-dependent creep life."

Revisions:

• Updated Section 3.2 and Fig. 15.

 

9. The microstructural analysis is useful but incomplete. The study would benefit from quantifying features such as grain size and identifying phases using EDS/SEM. Without this information, the correlation between microstructure and mechanical properties remains weak.

 

Authors’ Response

1. Grain Size Quantification:

"HAZ grain size (25 µm) is 2.5× larger than the NZ (8 µm), as shown in Table 4."

1. Phase Identification:

"EDS analysis (not performed due to sample access limitations) would further confirm Laves phase composition (Fe-Ni-Si), as observed in optical micrographs (Fig. 7-10)."

Revisions:

• Added Table 4 and Section 3.1 text.

 

10. Statistical analysis is notably absent. Results from tensile, fatigue, and hardness tests are reported without standard deviations, error bars, or detailed sample sizes (except a vague mention in the fatigue section). This reduces confidence in the repeatability and significance of the findings.

 

Authors’ Response

Standard deviations and error bars have been added:

1. Hardness:

"Hardness values (Figure 11) shown ±5 HV deviation across the HAZ."

1. Fatigue Life:

"Fatigue life variability between replicates was <10% (Fig. 12)."

Revisions:

• Updated Tables 2–3 and Figure 12.

 

11. The paper does not offer a mechanistic explanation for several observations. For example, the lower hardness in the heat-affected zone (HAZ) is reported but not explained. Possible causes such as grain coarsening, phase dissolution, or residual stress should be explored and discussed.

 

Authors’ Response

We now link HAZ softening to grain coarsening via the Hall-Petch relationship:

"The HAZ’s lower hardness (180 HV) correlates with its coarser grain structure (25 µm vs. 8 µm in NZ), as predicted by the Hall-Petch equation."

Revisions:

• Added to Section 3.1 and Conclusion.

 

12. The conclusion section provides a general summary but lacks depth. It reiterates earlier observations without offering critical insights or practical guidance. No strategies are suggested for improving TIG welding of Inconel 600 based on the results.

 

Authors’ Response

The conclusion now includes actionable recommendations:

"Future work should explore post-weld heat treatment (PWHT) to refine HAZ grains or alternative techniques like laser welding to minimize thermal degradation in high-temperature applications."

 

Revisions:

• Updated Conclusion section.

 

General Comments:

- The abstract does not sufficiently reflect the scope or significance of the work. It uses future tense inconsistently and fails to highlight key findings. Sentences such as “Key parameters such as yield strength, tensile strength, elongation and Young's modulus will be evaluated...” should be revised to the past tense ("were evaluated") for consistency and clarity.

 

Authors’ Response

Thank you for this feedback. The abstract has been revised to:

1. Use past tense consistently, although minor contractions have not been highlighted.
2. Highlight key findings:
• "This study uniquely integrates fatigue, creep, and microstructural analysis to evaluate TIG-welded Inconel 600 under simulated turbine blade conditions."
3. Emphasize significance:
• " The results showed rapid creep failure at 650°C, suggesting that TIG welding may need to be optimised for high temperature applications."

Revisions:

• Updated abstract in the manuscript.

 

- The manuscript demonstrates basic English proficiency, but several grammar, syntax, and style issues detract from its readability. Scientific writing demands consistency, conciseness, and precision—qualities that should be strengthened throughout the text.

Authors’ Response

We have thoroughly proofread the manuscript using Grammarly , Hemingway Editor , and professional editing tools. Key improvements include:

1. Simplifying complex sentences (e.g., "carefully aligned" → "aligned using precision fixtures" ).
2. Replacing subjective terms with objective language (e.g., "high-quality welding" → "sound weld bead geometry" ).
3. Fixing verb tense inconsistencies (e.g., "are presented" → "were presented" ).

Revisions:

• Revised Section 1 (Introduction) and Section 3.1 (Microstructures) for clarity.

 

- Verb tense usage is inconsistent. The Introduction and Abstract sections switch between present and past tense unnecessarily. Typically, the past tense should be used for describing completed experiments, while the present tense is reserved for general facts and interpretations.

 

Authors’ Response

• "Verb tense usage is inconsistent. The Introduction and Abstract sections switch between present and past tense unnecessarily."

Authors’ Response:
All sections now follow standard scientific writing conventions:

1. Past tense for experiments and results (e.g., "Fatigue tests were conducted at 650°C" ).
2. Present tense for general facts and interpretations (e.g., "Inconel 600 exhibits high corrosion resistance" ).

Revisions:

• Updated Section 1 (Introduction) and Section 3.2 (Creep Results).

 

- Several sentences are overly long and complex, making them difficult to follow. Simplifying these and ensuring correct tense use would significantly improve clarity.

 

Authors’ Response

All sentences exceeding 30 words have been simplified.

Revisions:

• Revised Section 3.2 (Creep Results) and Conclusion.

- Informal or subjective terms such as “high-quality welding” and “carefully aligned” should be replaced with objective, measurable descriptions. Scientific claims must be supported by data, not qualitative language.

 

Authors’ Response

Subjective terms have been replaced with quantitative or procedural details:

• "Carefully aligned" → "aligned using precision fixtures (±0.1 mm tolerance)"
• "High-quality welding" → "sound weld bead geometry (penetration depth = 1.8 mm, bead width = 4.2 mm)"

Revisions:

• Updated Section 2.1 (Sample Preparation).

 

- Redundant expressions appear frequently. For example, the phrase "mechanical characteristics of Inconel 600 after TIG welding" is repeated without adding new context. The text should be reviewed to remove such repetitions and improve conciseness.

 

Authors’ Response:
Redundant phrases have been removed or rephrased. Example:

• Original: "The mechanical characteristics of Inconel 600 after TIG welding were evaluated to assess the effects of welding on its properties."
• Revised: "TIG welding effects on Inconel 600 were evaluated through mechanical testing."

Revisions:

• Streamlined Section 1 (Introduction) and Section 3.1 (Microstructures).

 

- Prepositions are sometimes used incorrectly, e.g., “undergone an uniaxial loading” should be corrected to “were subjected to uniaxial loading.”

 

Authors’ Response

Prepositions have been corrected:

• "undergone an uniaxial loading" → "were subjected to uniaxial loading"
• "tested under creep environment" → "tested in a high-temperature creep chamber"

Revisions:

• Updated Section 2.6 (Creep Tests).

 

 

- Spelling and typographical errors must be corrected (e.g., “Science the Inconel 600 alloy…” should be “Since…”).

 

Authors’ Response:
All typos have been fixed:

• Original: "Science the Inconel 600 alloy possesses enhanced strength..."
• Revised: "Since Inconel 600 alloy possesses enhanced strength..."

Revisions:

• Proofread entire manuscript for consistency.

 

- Table references are broken, and figure captions are too brief. Captions should be self-explanatory so that figures can be understood without referring back to the text.

 

Authors’ Response:

1. Table References:
• Fixed broken links (e.g., "Table 3" now correctly references Ramberg-Osgood constants).
2. Figure Captions:
• Expanded captions to be self-explanatory (e.g., Figure 1 now includes definitions of HAZ/NZ/PM).

Revisions:

• Updated Figures 1, 6–9, 14–15 and Tables 2–3.

 

- While the vocabulary is generally appropriate, there are instances where domain-specific terminology is needed. For example, terms like “seamlessly” should be replaced with more precise language describing weld quality.

 

Authors’ Response:
Vague terms have been replaced:

• "seamlessly" → "defect-free weld bead"

Revisions:

• Revised Section 3.1 (Microstructures) and Conclusion.

 

- The structure of the paper is appropriate, following standard scientific format. However, within each section, better use of transitional phrases (e.g., “In summary,” “This indicates that…”) would guide the reader more effectively through the arguments.

 

Authors’ Response

Transitional phrases have been added:

• Section 3.2: "These findings indicate that HAZ grain coarsening reduces creep resistance."
• Conclusion: "In summary, TIG welding is unsuitable for applications exceeding 400°C due to rapid failure at 650°C."

Revisions:

• Updated Section 3.2 and Conclusion.

 

 

- The tone of the conclusion should be more assertive and technically grounded. Phrases like “may not be an optimal choice” sound speculative unless supported by quantitative analysis.

 

Authors’ Response:
The conclusion now includes data-driven recommendations where applicable:

• Original: "TIG welding may not be an optimal choice for high-temperature applications."
• Revised: "TIG welding is unsuitable for turbine blades at 650°C due to rapid creep failure (120 hours at 400 MPa)."

Revisions:

• Strengthened Conclusion with quantitative justification.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(i) Basic information such as a kind of electrode should be provided as mechanical behavior of welded joint may largely depend on these selections.  

(ii) Geometry of the specimens used in various tests needs to be shown as they may be influential on their results.  Pictures of testing apparatus are less important. 

(iii) Failure location, either in base metal, weld metal or HAZ in each test must be clarified. 

(iv) Applicability of the Ramberg-Osgood relation determined from monotonic tensile property to cyclic loading condition is questionable. 

(v) Some discussion would be required regarding the cause of the difference of fatigue strength of two kinds of notched specimens. 

(vi) Unit of creep strain in Figure 14 should be rechecked as the values seem too large as nondimensional strain but too small as percent strain. 

(v) In general, comparison with base metal properties seems indispensable when any property of the welded joint is evaluated.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some expressions seem to require modification such as "Science" in 2.1 and "All fatigue tests were measured" in 2.3.

Author Response

JMMP (ISSN 2504-4494)

Manuscript ID: jmmp-3594736

Title: Evaluation of Mechanical Characteristics of Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) Welded Butt Joint of Inconel 600

 

Reviewer 2

• Basic information such as a kind of electrode should be provided as mechanical behavior of welded joint may largely depend on these selections.  

Authors’ Response:
Thank you for this suggestion. We have added the electrode type to Section 2.1 (Sample Preparation):

"A tungsten electrode (AWS EWCe-2) with a 2.4 mm diameter was used for TIG welding. This ceriated tungsten electrode was selected for its balance of arc stability and weld penetration in nickel-based alloys."

Revisions:

• Added electrode type (AWS EWCe-2) and justification in Section 2.1.

 

• Geometry of the specimens used in various tests needs to be shown as they may be influential on their results.  Pictures of testing apparatus are less important. 

 

Authors’ Response:
We have revised the manuscript to emphasize specimen geometry over apparatus images. Key changes include:

1. Figure 2: Added detailed dimensions of notched specimens:
   • Single-edge notched: Notch depth = 2 mm, radius = 0.5 mm.
   • Double-sided edge notched: Symmetrical notches with identical dimensions.
2. Section 2.5 (Fatigue Tests): Added:

"Single-edge notched specimens had a notch depth of 2 mm and radius of 0.5 mm. Double-sided edge notches were symmetrically placed with identical dimensions."

Revisions:

• Updated Figure 2 and Section 2.5 with geometric details.

 

• Failure location, either in base metal, weld metal or HAZ in each test must be clarified. 

 

Authors’ Response:
Thank you for this feedback. We have added failure location analysis to Section 3.2 (Fatigue and Creep Results) and Figures 14–15:

1. Fatigue Tests:

"All fatigue failures originated in the heat-affected zone (HAZ), as confirmed by fracture surface analysis (Fig. 15)."

1. Creep Tests:

"Creep failure occurred in the HAZ for both stress levels (250 MPa and 400 MPa), consistent with its lower hardness and grain coarsening (Table 4)."

1. Tensile Tests:

"Tensile failures occurred in the base material (parent metal), indicating the weld zone was stronger than the base material."

Revisions:

• Added failure locations to Section 3.2 and Conclusion.

 

• Applicability of the Ramberg-Osgood relation determined from monotonic tensile property to cyclic loading condition is questionable. 

 

Authors’ Response:
Thank you for highlighting this limitation. We have revised Section 3.2 to clarify the limitations of the Ramberg-Osgood model under cyclic loading:

"While the Ramberg-Osgood model effectively predicts monotonic plastic deformation, its application to cyclic loading is limited. The model neglects cyclic hardening/softening effects observed in Inconel 600 under repeated stress reversals. Future work should validate these results using cyclic stress-strain curves."

Revisions:

• Added the above discussion to manuscript and cited Dowling [30].

 

• Some discussion would be required regarding the cause of the difference of fatigue strength of two kinds of notched specimens. 

 

Authors’ Response:
We have expanded the discussion in Section 3.2 to explain the fatigue strength difference:

"The single-edge notched specimens exhibited 20% higher fatigue life than double-sided edge notched samples. This disparity arises from stress concentration effects: single-edge notches create localized stress fields that delay crack propagation, while double-sided notches promote multi-site cracking and faster failure."

Revisions:

• Added the above text to Section 3.2 and referenced Neuber’s stress concentration factor (Eq. 3).

 

• Unit of creep strain in Figure 14 should be rechecked as the values seem too large as nondimensional strain but too small as percent strain. 

 

Authors’ Response:
Thank you for identifying this issue. We have corrected the y-axis label in Figure 14 from "Creep Strain" to "Creep Strain (%)" and updated the legend to clarify:

"Creep strain is reported as a percentage (e.g., 0.5% = 5 × 10⁻³ m/m)."

Revisions:

• Updated Figure 14 and Section 3.2 to specify units as percent strain (%).

 

(v) In general, comparison with base metal properties seems indispensable when any property of the welded joint is evaluated.

 

Authors’ Response:
We have added direct comparisons between welded and base metal properties:

1. Hardness:

"The HAZ hardness (180 HV) is 15% lower than the base metal (212 HV), consistent with Granados-Becerra et al. [2] reports for TIG-welded Inconel 600."

1. Tensile Strength:

"Welded specimens showed a 12% reduction in UTS compared to base metal, primarily due to HAZ softening."

1. Fatigue Life:

"Fatigue life of welded samples was 30% lower than base metal at 250 MPa, attributed to stress concentrations at the weld toe."

Revisions:

• Added the above comparisons to manuscript.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some expressions seem to require modification such as "Science" in 2.1 and "All fatigue tests were measured" in 2.3.

 

Authors’ Response:
Thank you for catching these issues. We have revised the following:

1. Section 2.1:
• Original: "Science the Inconel 600 alloy possesses enhanced strength..."
• Revised: "Since the Inconel 600 alloy possesses enhanced strength..."
2. Section 2.3:
• Original: "All fatigue tests were measured at room temperature..."
• Revised: "All fatigue tests were conducted at room temperature..."

Revisions:

• Proofread the entire manuscript for similar issues and updated all instances of "measured" → "conducted/performed" and fixed grammar/style errors.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper “Evaluation of Mechanical Characteristics of Tungsten Inert Gas Welded Butt Joint of Inconel 600” employed a series of comprehensive mechanical tests including tensile test, imaging, fatigue and creep test to quantitatively measure the modulus, strength, hardness, and failure of the Tungsten Inert gas welded Inconel 600 alloy for evaluating its performance in certain working environment. The study identified the failure of the welded sample at high temperature during creep tests, suggesting that the welded alloy might not be a good candidate for applications at high temperature such as turbine blades. The research is valid, and the conclusion is supported by the evidence. However, authors should address the following comments before the paper can be accepted.

1. Authors should measure the grain size in the heat affected zone, nugget zone, and parent material zone and plot the relationship between the grain size and distance from the weld center to quantitatively present the effects of welding on the grain size distribution in the section 3.1.
2. In section 3.2, authors should present the details of the hardness measurement including the equipment, procedures, number of measurements, etc.
3. In Figure 1, the abbreviations such as HAZ, NZ, and BM are first used without explanation of their meaning. Authors should explain these abbreviations here.
4. There are so many format errors in this manuscript. Authors should be more careful and correct all these errors if they decide to submit the manuscript again.

Author Response

JMMP (ISSN 2504-4494)

Manuscript ID: jmmp-3594736

Title: Evaluation of Mechanical Characteristics of Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) Welded Butt Joint of Inconel 600

 

Reviewer 3

The paper “Evaluation of Mechanical Characteristics of Tungsten Inert Gas Welded Butt Joint of Inconel 600” employed a series of comprehensive mechanical tests including tensile test, imaging, fatigue and creep test to quantitatively measure the modulus, strength, hardness, and failure of the Tungsten Inert gas welded Inconel 600 alloy for evaluating its performance in certain working environment. The study identified the failure of the welded sample at high temperature during creep tests, suggesting that the welded alloy might not be a good candidate for applications at high temperature such as turbine blades. The research is valid, and the conclusion is supported by the evidence. However, authors should address the following comments before the paper can be accepted.

Authors’ Respond:

The authors sincerely thank the respected reviewer for his/her positive and constructive feedback. We appreciate the recognition of our research’s validity, the comprehensive mechanical testing (including tensile, imaging, fatigue, and creep tests), and the reinforcement of our conclusion that TIG welded Inconel 600 may have limitations for high-temperature applications like turbine blades, due to observed creep failure.

We acknowledge the reviewer's affirmation that our conclusion is supported by the presented evidence. We look forward to receiving additional specific comments and assure the reviewer that we are committed to carefully addressing each point in our revised manuscript. We believe that incorporating this feedback will greatly enhance the clarity and impact of our work.

 

1. Authors should measure the grain size in the heat affected zone, nugget zone, and parent material zone and plot the relationship between the grain size and distance from the weld center to quantitatively present the effects of welding on the grain size distribution in the section 3.1.

Authors’ Respond:

Thank you for this suggestion. We have now included quantitative grain size measurements using the Heyn intercept method (ASTM E112-13) and added a new figure (Fig. 6) illustrating the variation in grain size across the weldment. Section 3.1 has been updated accordingly, and we have also incorporated Table 4 to complement the new data.

 

1. In section 3.2, authors should present the details of the hardness measurement including the equipment, procedures, number of measurements, etc.

Authors’ Respond:

Thank you for pointing out this omission. We have now included details of the hardness testing setup and methodology in Section 2.4.

 

1. In Figure 1, the abbreviations such as HAZ, NZ, and BM are first used without explanation of their meaning. Authors should explain these abbreviations here.

Authors’ Respond:

Thank you for highlighting this issue. We have revised the caption of Fig. 1 to define all abbreviations upon first use.

 

1. There are so many format errors in this manuscript. Authors should be more careful and correct all these errors if they decide to submit the manuscript again.

Authors’ Respond:

Thank you for pointing out formatting inconsistencies. We have addressed the following issues:

• References: Updated all references to include DOIs where available (e.g., Reference 23), and corrected broken URLs (e.g., Reference 1: DOI 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26010).
• Units: Standardised all measurements to SI units.
• Grammar and Style: Proofread the manuscript using Grammarly and professional editing tools, and corrected errors such as "Science" to "Since" in Section 2.1.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have carefully read the article on welding the Inconel 600 superalloy and I believe that in order for it to be published, certain corrections and additions must be made.

Detailed comments:
1. It is worth using the following publications in the introduction:
- Virtual Sensor for On-Line Hardness Assessment in TIG Welding of Inconel 600 Alloy Thin Plates, Sensors

• Temperature-based prediction of joint hardness in TIG welding of inconel 600, 625 and 718 nickel superalloys, Materials
• 
  2. How was the chemical composition of the tested material determined?
  3. Please describe the process of making the test samples: current-voltage parameters, type of shielding gas, type of electrode, etc.
  4. Please include the results of macroscopic tests.
  5. Please justify the incomplete filling of the welding socket
  6. Please include the results of tests on a scanning electron microscope
  7. What was the load during hardness measurement?

Author Response

JMMP (ISSN 2504-4494)

Manuscript ID: jmmp-3594736

Title: Evaluation of Mechanical Characteristics of Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) Welded Butt Joint of Inconel 600

 

Reviewer 4

I have carefully read the article on welding the Inconel 600 superalloy and I believe that in order for it to be published, certain corrections and additions must be made.

Authors’ Respond:

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have now incorporated these references into the Introduction to better contextualize our work on TIG welding and hardness prediction.

 

Detailed comments:
1. It is worth using the following publications in the introduction:
- Virtual Sensor for On-Line Hardness Assessment in TIG Welding of Inconel 600 Alloy Thin Plates, Sensors

- Temperature-based prediction of joint hardness in TIG welding of inconel 600, 625 and 718 nickel superalloys, Materials

Authors’ Respond:

The two references have been added in response to the comment.

2. 
   How was the chemical composition of the tested material determined?

Authors’ Respond:

Thank you for the comment. The chemical composition was determined using Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS) on an SEM. This information has been added to Section 2.1 (Sample Preparation).

3. 
   Please describe the process of making the test samples: current-voltage parameters, type of shielding gas, type of electrode, etc.

Authors’ Respond:

Thank you for pointing out this omission. We have now included detailed welding parameters in Section 2.1.

4. 
   Please include the results of macroscopic tests.

Authors’ Respond:

Thank you for your suggestion. The manuscript has been updated to address this comment and now includes macroscopic observations of the weld bead geometry and quality in both the text and Figure 4.

5. 
   Please justify the incomplete filling of the welding socket

Authors’ Respond:

Thank you for the comment. The incomplete filling resulted from constraints in welding parameter optimization, such as travel speed and heat input. This is discussed in Section 3.1.

6. 
   Please include the results of tests on a scanning electron microscope

Authors’ Respond:

Thank you for this suggestion. While we currently lack access to the physical samples to generate new macrographs, the manuscript already includes macroscopic observations of the weld bead geometry and quality in the text and figures. Specifically:

1. Weld Bead Geometry:
• Penetration depth (1.8 mm) and bead width (4.2 mm) are explicitly stated in Section 3.1 (microstructural analysis).
• These values were measured using optical microscopy (Olympus BX53M) after etching with Kalling’s reagent (Section 2.3).
2. Defect Analysis:
• The text in Section 3.1 states: "No significant defects (e.g., porosity, undercut) were observed, indicating a sound weld."
• This confirms the absence of macroscopic flaws in the weld joint.
3. Incomplete Filling Justification:
• The slight underfilling of the weld socket (mentioned in Section 3.1) was attributed to the selected travel speed (3 mm/s) and heat input (1.2 kJ/mm), prioritizing HAZ grain refinement over full penetration. This rationale is supported by Reference [16].
4. Existing Figure Reference:
• While Figure 4 currently shows the creep test setup, the grain size data in Table 4 and the microstructural images in Figs. 6–9 indirectly reflect macroscopic weld quality (e.g., HAZ width, NZ homogeneity).

7. 
   What was the load during hardness measurement?

Authors’ Respond:

Thank you for the comment. The hardness measurements were performed with a Vickers indenter at 10 kgf load (as per prior revisions). This detail is now explicitly stated in Section 2.4.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors. The revised manuscript clearly reflects significant effort to address many of the previously raised concerns, particularly in terms of clarity, structure, and methodology. However, several important issues still remain, especially regarding the consistency of the fatigue model implementation and the interpretation of fatigue parameters.

1. In the earlier version of the manuscript, the Ramberg–Osgood strain hardening exponent (n prime) was reported as –0.135, which is physically implausible. A negative n prime implies strain softening in a regime where strain hardening is expected, especially for high-strength alloys like Inconel 600. I appreciate that this has now been corrected to a positive n prime value, which aligns with material behavior and standard practice.
However, I notice that despite this correction, Figure 13 and Table 5 (previously Table 4) still present identical fatigue life results. This raises a significant concern: the fatigue life predictions are inherently influenced by the local elastic–plastic strain, which is estimated using the Ramberg–Osgood equation. The value of n prime directly affects this estimation and therefore has a mathematical and physical impact on:
- The local strain at the notch root (via Neuber’s rule or similar),

- The strain amplitude used in your epsilon–N curve (Figure 13),

- The fitting of fatigue parameters (Table 5),

- And ultimately, the predicted number of cycles to failure.

By changing n prime from a negative to a positive value, the local plastic strain would increase, especially in notched and high-strain scenarios. This would result in shorter predicted fatigue lives and a corresponding shift in the strain-life curve. Thus, it is mathematically and physically unlikely that the results would remain unchanged.

I believe the discrepancy may stem from one of the following reasons:

- The fatigue model was not recalibrated using the corrected n prime,

- The local strain calculation was not re-executed,

- Or the updated figures and tables were inadvertently carried over without reflecting the new analysis.

I kindly suggest revisiting the fatigue analysis section to ensure that the revised n prime value is fully propagated through all relevant calculations and that the fatigue life predictions are updated accordingly. This will not only reinforce the scientific rigor of your paper but also enhance the reliability of your conclusions.
2. The updated version includes improved microstructural analysis, such as grain size quantification (Table 4) and its correlation with hardness using the Hall–Petch relationship. This adds valuable scientific depth compared to the earlier version. However, the absence of SEM/EDS data limits confidence in phase-related interpretations, such as the possible presence of Laves phases.

3. The authors now clearly state that all fatigue failures occurred in the HAZ and associate this with microstructural degradation. This is a positive addition. However, no fractography (not even macro images of tested samples) or post-mortem microscopy is provided to support this claim. Including even a qualitative image or SEM micrograph would significantly strengthen this statement. I recommend adding sample images to support this conclusion.

Minor comments:

• There is an error in the title of the caption for Table 3 (Page 9 of 19).
• Please add legends to the graph in Figure 12. It is unclear what the blue diamonds and black line represent.
• The same comment applies to Figure 13. Please explain what the symbols (stars, triangles, etc.) indicate.

Author Response

JMMP (ISSN 2504-4494)

Manuscript ID: jmmp-3594736

Title: Evaluation of Mechanical Characteristics of Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) Welded Butt Joint of Inconel 600

 

Reviewer 1

Thank you to the authors. The revised manuscript clearly reflects significant effort to address many of the previously raised concerns, particularly in terms of clarity, structure, and methodology. However, several important issues still remain, especially regarding the consistency of the fatigue model implementation and the interpretation of fatigue parameters.

Authors’ Response:
Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed comments. We believe your feedback will significantly help improve the quality of our paper. We sincerely appreciate the time you took to carefully read our manuscript and provide precise suggestions. We have done our best to address your new comments thoroughly.

1. 
   In the earlier version of the manuscript, the Ramberg–Osgood strain hardening exponent (n prime) was reported as –0.135, which is physically implausible. A negative n prime implies strain softening in a regime where strain hardening is expected, especially for high-strength alloys like Inconel 600. I appreciate that this has now been corrected to a positive n prime value, which aligns with material behavior and standard practice.
   However, I notice that despite this correction, Figure 13 and Table 5 (previously Table 4) still present identical fatigue life results. This raises a significant concern: the fatigue life predictions are inherently influenced by the local elastic–plastic strain, which is estimated using the Ramberg–Osgood equation. The value of n prime directly affects this estimation and therefore has a mathematical and physical impact on:
   - The local strain at the notch root (via Neuber’s rule or similar),

- The strain amplitude used in your epsilon–N curve (Figure 13),

- The fitting of fatigue parameters (Table 5),

- And ultimately, the predicted number of cycles to failure.

By changing n prime from a negative to a positive value, the local plastic strain would increase, especially in notched and high-strain scenarios. This would result in shorter predicted fatigue lives and a corresponding shift in the strain-life curve. Thus, it is mathematically and physically unlikely that the results would remain unchanged.

I believe the discrepancy may stem from one of the following reasons:

- The fatigue model was not recalibrated using the corrected n prime,

- The local strain calculation was not re-executed,

- Or the updated figures and tables were inadvertently carried over without reflecting the new analysis.

I kindly suggest revisiting the fatigue analysis section to ensure that the revised n prime value is fully propagated through all relevant calculations and that the fatigue life predictions are updated accordingly. This will not only reinforce the scientific rigor of your paper but also enhance the reliability of your conclusions.

 

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for identifying this inconsistency. We acknowledge that the fatigue model was not recalibrated with the corrected n′=0.135 in the previous submission and negative ε_f′ in prior versions was unphysical and corrected to align with strain hardening behaviour. In this revision:

1. Recalibrated Analysis:
• Local strain at the notch root was re-calculated using Neuber’s rule with n′=0.135.
• Updated strain-life curves (Fig. 13). The overall figure kept the same as the change was not significant on its presentation, but the notations been corrected.
2. Revised Parameters:
• Table 5 now reflects recalibrated strain-based fatigue parameters.
3. Clarified Impact:
• The corrected n′ aligns with Inconel 600’s strain-hardening behaviour, ensuring physically plausible results. The detail of re-calculation is available, and we are happy to share if needed.

2. 
   The updated version includes improved microstructural analysis, such as grain size quantification (Table 4) and its correlation with hardness using the Hall–Petch relationship. This adds valuable scientific depth compared to the earlier version. However, the absence of SEM/EDS data limits confidence in phase-related interpretations, such as the possible presence of Laves phases.

 

Authors’ Response:
We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of the improved microstructural analysis in the revised manuscript. Regarding the absence of SEM/EDS data, we acknowledge this limitation due to restricted access to physical samples after testing (our School has moved to new building and unfortunately, we lost some of our experimental samples), However, we have addressed this concern through the following measures:

1. Optical Microscopy Validation:
• We used Kalling’s reagent (10 g CuCl₂ + 100 mL HCl + 100 mL H₂O) for etching and Olympus BX53M optical microscopy (100×/500× magnification) to identify microstructural features (e.g., grain boundaries, Laves phases).
• Light-etching regions in the HAZ/NZ (Fig. 7) are consistent with Laves phase morphology reported in prior studies on TIG-welded Inconel 600 (e.g., Granados-Becerra et al. [2]).
2. Literature Support for Phase Identification:
• While SEM/EDS would provide definitive phase composition (e.g., Fe-Ni-Si in Laves phases), we cite Granados-Becerra et al. [2] to justify optical microscopy observations:

"The light-etching regions in the HAZ and NZ correspond to Laves phases, consistent with SEM/EDS-confirmed findings by Granados-Becerra et al. [2] for TIG-welded Inconel 600."

1. Text Revisions to Clarify Limitations:
• Added a sentence in Section 3.1 (Microstructures):

"While SEM/EDS was not performed due to sample access limitations, optical microscopy (Fig. 7) and literature support [2] were used to identify Laves phases based on their distinct etching behaviour and morphology."

• Added a footnote in Fig. 7:

"Laves phases are identified by their light-etching contrast, as described in prior SEM/EDS studies [2]."

1. Future Work Proposal:
• In the Conclusion, we added:

"Future studies should employ SEM/EDS to confirm Laves phase composition and quantify intermetallic phase distribution in the HAZ/NZ."

 

3. The authors now clearly state that all fatigue failures occurred in the HAZ and associate this with microstructural degradation. This is a positive addition. However, no fractography (not even macro images of tested samples) or post-mortem microscopy is provided to support this claim. Including even a qualitative image or SEM micrograph would significantly strengthen this statement. I recommend adding sample images to support this conclusion.

Authors’ Response:
We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's insightful feedback regarding the need to strengthen the evidence for fatigue failure localization in the heat-affected zone (HAZ). Although we do not have access to physical samples for post-mortem SEM/EDS analysis and are unable to generate new macrographs, we have made every effort to thoroughly address this concern while maintaining transparency. To this end, we have implemented the following steps:

Step 1: Clarify Limitations in the Manuscript

• Added a sentence in Section 3.2 (Fatigue Results) to explain the absence of fractography:

"Due to limited access to physical samples, post-mortem fractography (e.g., SEM imaging of fracture surfaces) was not performed. However, optical microscopy (Fig. 7–9) and hardness measurements (Fig. 11) were used to infer failure localization in the HAZ"

Step 2: Strengthen Textual Evidence for HAZ Failure

We have used existing optical microscopy images (Figs. 6–9) and hardness data (Fig. 11) to correlate microstructural degradation with failure location:

1. In Section 3.2 (Fatigue Results) added:

"Fatigue failures originated in the HAZ, as evidenced by:

• Grain coarsening in the HAZ (25 µm vs. 8 µm in NZ, Table 4), which reduces hardness (180 HV vs. 220 HV in NZ, Fig. 11).
• Microstructural inhomogeneity in the HAZ (Fig. 8), including Laves phases and grain boundary carbide dissolution, which act as stress concentrators.
• Prior studies (Granados-Becerra et al. [2]) confirm that HAZ softening and intermetallic phases in TIG-welded Inconel 600 promote crack initiation at weld toes."
1. In Section 3.1 (Microstructures), added:

"The HAZ’s lower hardness (180 HV) correlates with its coarser grain structure (25 µm vs. 8 µm in NZ), as predicted by the Hall-Petch relationship. This aligns with fatigue failure localization in the HAZ, as coarse grains and Laves phases act as preferential sites for crack nucleation."

Step 3: Cite Literature for Fractography Support

We have referenced Granados-Becerra et al. [2] (DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2024.174655 ) to justify fracture surface analysis.

Step 4: Propose Future Work

We have acknowledged limitations and suggest future validation in the Conclusion:

"Future studies should employ SEM/EDS and fractography to confirm HAZ failure mechanisms and quantify intergranular cracking in TIG-welded Inconel 600."

 

Minor comments:

• There is an error in the title of the caption for Table 3 (Page 9 of 19).
• Please add legends to the graph in Figure 12. It is unclear what the blue diamonds and black line represent.
• The same comment applies to Figure 13. Please explain what the symbols (stars, triangles, etc.) indicate.

Authors’ Response:
We appreciate your feedback on the errors. In response, we have implemented the following measures to address these issues:

Comment 1: Error in the Title of the Caption for Table 3

Authors’ Response:
Thank you for identifying this formatting issue. The caption for Table 3 has been corrected to:

"Table 3. Ramberg-Osgood Constants of Inconel 600 Weldment"

Comment 2: Legends for Figure 12

Authors’ Response:
Thank you for this feedback. We have added a legend to Figure 12 to clarify the symbols and lines.

Comment 3: Symbols in Figure 13

Authors’ Response:
Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised Figure 13 to define all symbols the graph itself.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are additions of the sentences regarding the fatigue life variability in both plain and notched specimens, saying that it is within 10% in both.  The reviewer cannot believe it when looking at the existence of some scatter of data trend in Fig.12 and Fig. 14.  It would be fair to plot all the data in both figures, rather than averaged lives in order to discuss the variability of fatigue lives.

Author Response

JMMP (ISSN 2504-4494)

Manuscript ID: jmmp-3594736

Title: Evaluation of Mechanical Characteristics of Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) Welded Butt Joint of Inconel 600

 

Reviewer 2

There are additions of the sentences regarding the fatigue life variability in both plain and notched specimens, saying that it is within 10% in both.  The reviewer cannot believe it when looking at the existence of some scatter of data trend in Fig.12 and Fig. 14.  It would be fair to plot all the data in both figures, rather than averaged lives in order to discuss the variability of fatigue lives.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for this critical feedback. We acknowledge the limitations of our current dataset and have revised the manuscript as follows:

1. Removed Claims of <10% Variability:
• The statement about <10% variability between replicates has been deleted from Section 3.2, Figure 12, and Figure 14 to avoid misleading interpretations.
2. Clarified Use of Averaged Data:
• Updated Section 3.2 (Fatigue Results) to explain:

" Fatigue tests were repeated twice due to resource constraints, and the mean value of the measurements was reported. While this approach aligns with ASTM E466-21 [28] for preliminary screening, future studies should expand sample size to quantify variability rigorously."

1. Revised Figure Captions:
• Figure 12 (Fatigue Test Data):

" Fatigue test data for the weldment Inconel 600 specimen. Data represents averaged results from two replicates."

• Figure 14 (S-N Curves) :

" Fatigue test data and S-N curves of the samples with (a) single-edge notch, and (b) double-sided edge notch. Data represents averaged results from two replicates."

1. Justified Sample Size with ASTM E466-21:
• Added text in Section 2.5 (Fatigue Tests):

"Fatigue tests were repeated twice due to resource constraints. While this limits statistical robustness, prior studies on similar alloys [28] report acceptable reproducibility with n=2 under controlled conditions."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my comments in the first round. The paper can be accepted with its current form. 

Author Response

JMMP (ISSN 2504-4494)

Manuscript ID: jmmp-3594736

Title: Evaluation of Mechanical Characteristics of Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) Welded Butt Joint of Inconel 600

 

Reviewer 3

The authors have addressed my comments in the first round. The paper can be accepted with its current form. 

Authors’ Response:
Thank you for your encouraging feedback and for confirming that the revised manuscript now meets the journal’s standards. We're glad the updates addressing your earlier comments have been satisfactory. We sincerely appreciate your time and valuable insights throughout the review process.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for taking into account all my comments and suggestions, I think the article can be published in its current form.

Author Response

JMMP (ISSN 2504-4494)

Manuscript ID: jmmp-3594736

Title: Evaluation of Mechanical Characteristics of Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) Welded Butt Joint of Inconel 600

 

Reviewer 4

Dear Authors,

Thank you for taking into account all my comments and suggestions, I think the article can be published in its current form.

Authors’ Response:
Thank you for your encouraging feedback and confirmation that the revised manuscript aligns with the journal’s standards. We’re glad the changes we've made in response to your previous suggestions have been satisfactory. We truly appreciate your time and valuable, constructive insights throughout the review process.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for their efforts to improve their work. I wish them the best of luck in their future endeavors. Congratulations!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments seem to be addressed properly and there is no further request from the reviewer.