Experimental Research and Numerical Simulation of Weld Repair with High Energy Spark Deposition Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
found within the manuscript. I used yellow highlight for areas where I made suggested changes. I used blue highlights for areas where I had technical comments or issues.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The subject of the paper is interesting and important; generally the weld repairs and especially the using of up-to-date methods (e.g. HESD method) are essential fields of researches. Using experimental research and parallel application of numerical methods are up-to-date methodologies, too. The aims of the research work were logically formulated and consistently demonstrated. However, the presentation of the research work and the results is overall not unambiguous, significant elements and details have not been described. Consequently, the manuscript should be amended.
Under Section 1 (Introduction) Authors designated the damage categories as “wear, corrosion, fatigue, scratches, and other damage”. In my opinion this grouping is not clear (e.g. wear vs. scratch), therefore, please, consider using other approaches, e.g. deformation, fracture, corrosion, wear and deterioration (ageing). The source of the relevant statistics (Section 1) should be referred. Authors described the unfavourable effects of the residual stresses, while residual stresses have advantageous effects too (e.g. D. Cseh, V. Mertinger, J. Lukacs, ‘Residual Stress Behavior in Hardened Shot Peened 42CrMo4 Specimens during Fatigue Load’, Materials Research Proceedings, Vol. 2, pp 491-496, 2017, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21741/9781945291173-83). Please, add this approach on the manuscript.
The Subsection 2.1. (HESD welding and testing) should be complemented. Please, add the justification of the materials selection, the basic mechanical properties of the selected steel, the pulse current and pulse time ranges with real values in Table 3, shape, geometry and locations of the tensile and fracture toughness tests specimens, the number of investigated specimens. Please, mark both the distances between the measuring points and the HESD welding in Fig. 5.
The Subsection 2.3.1. (Geometric model) should be completed, too. Please, refer Fig. 11. in the text and add the source(s) of the data can be found in Fig. 11. “Path 1” can be seen in Fig. 5. and “Path A” can be found in Fig. 10. Have these path same content? In the Subsection 2.3.2. (Heat source definition and boundary conditions) the reference of Fig 6. (row 225) is inappropriate, please, correct the mistake.
In Subsection 3.2. (Residual stress analysis) both measured and calculated residual stress data can be found. Data belonging to measuring points (Fig. 17.) and data belonging to distances (Fig. 19.) have been introduced, however the connection between the measuring points and the distances are not clear. Please, add the necessary information in favour of the best understanding of the results.
In Fig. 20. both KIC and JIC fracture toughness values have been illustrated. Are these values separate measured values or partially measured and partially calculated values?
Please, add the whole designations of the abbreviations in the text, too, belonging to their first occurrence. Please, do not use “/” in Table 1, separate the factors clearly. The list of reference should be corrected. Although I am not English native speaking person, but I think that English language and style of the manuscript should be corrected.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
I give some suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.
- Fig. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 do not give useful information. Please delete or change them. It is desirable to improve quality of other Figs (larger fonts, ...)
- What is the composition of the elctrode? Please add it to the manuscript.
- Table 3: does working mode have any meaning?
- Indentation strain method: refer to references; explain in more detail; How to obtain residual stress from equ. (1).
- Fig. 11: refer to references.
- Line 170- : "...weld material is the same as the base material," ==> weld material properties will influence on simulation results.
- Equ. (7) : explain Ip .
- Line 225: Fig 6. ==> Fig. 10
- Fig. 14: Explain the transverse, longitudinal, depth direction. Where is the X=0. Explain them in Fig. 10.
- Fig. 17: measuring points in Fig. 17 are the same as in in Fig. 5. They are not on the same line.
- Line 279: Path A==> Path 1 ?
- Line 285: "transverse stress changed from compressive stress to 285 tensile stress."==>Explain the reason, or add some test results.
- Fig. 20: decribe in detail how to produce tensile, fracture specimens from the welded plate.
- Line 313-: "because HESD repair welding process has a large cooling rate, it will refine the weld grain,"==> It is required some SEM images, and microstructural analysis.
- Table 7: Is the frequency the same? What is it.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have done an excellent job with nearly all of my suggestions and concerns. Although the authors have addressed my concern on measurement of residual stress, I still have a concern. The method used is not widely accepted and it cannot separate changes in material strength from residual stress, which is why it is not an accepted method for measurement of residual stress.
All indentation methods provide a convolution of stress measurement due to elasticity, plasticity, and residual stress, which is why they are inaccurate for measurement of residual stress, in particular.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks to the Authors for the valuable amendments, the added information and the corrections of more details; the modifications were precisely highlighted both in the covering letter and in the manuscript. Unfortunately, the presentation of the research work and the results is overall still not unambiguous; therefore the manuscript should be improved.
Under Section 1 (Introduction) Authors renewed the designation of the damage categories as “deformation, corrosion, fracture, wear, deterioration, and other damage under long-term action of complex working conditions and environment”. Please, use plural in the second half of the sentence (“other damages”) and add characteristic examples to this part. One reference belonging to the relevant statistics has been added, but this reference is on the one hand not excessively representative, on the other hand it has been written in Chinese language. The residual stress approach has been amended and explained, which was important in favour of the understanding of its importance. The factors can be found in Table 1 have been separated clearly.
The Subsection 2.1. (HESD welding and testing) has been complemented. The justifications of the materials selection, the chemical composition of the applied welding electrode and the basic mechanical properties of the investigated steel have been added. Table 2 should be referred in the text, or Table 2 and Table 3 can be merged in one table. Is in Table 3 “Shock absorption energy (J)” the “Charpy impact energy (J)”? If yes, please, use this term, if not, please, explains. It is necessary to add the real values of pulse current and pulse time ranges instead of intervals (“1~99 adjustable”) in Table 5. The shape, the geometry and locations of the tensile and fracture toughness tests specimens have been added and the distances between the test points both after initial and HESD welding have been demonstrated correctly. The number of investigated specimens has been added, too.
2.2. Subsection could not found in the manuscript.
The Subsection 2.3.1. (Geometric model) has been completed; start and end points have been added to Fig. 10., one source of the data can be found in Fig. 11. has been added, too. Unfortunately, this source is not easily available. The contradiction among the marked paths has been justified.
The Subsection 3.2. (Residual stress analysis) has been significantly revised. The connection between the measuring points and the distances has been clarified. Fracture surfaces and micrographs have been added, the results are more comprehensible.
The whole manuscript should be checked, the references for the tables and the figures should be controlled, all tables and figures should be referred. The list of reference should be corrected; the number of the references in square brackets should be deleted.
Although I am not English native speaking person, but I think that English language and style of the manuscript should be corrected.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
"Metals provides a forum for publishing papers which advance the in-depth understanding of the relationship between the structure, the properties or the functions of all kinds of metals."
The authors have added several photos of micristructures, but more in-detail structural analysis is hoped.
- Table 2, 3 %==> Wt. %?
- line 157, "A certain size indentation was made on the strain gauge by mechanical loading, " English should be checked.
- Fig. 8, 20, finishing of tensile specimens was as-welded? Describe how did you produce specimens.
- line267, " ...near the heat source during" Specify where it is.
- Mises==> von Mises
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks to the Authors again for the valuable amendments, the added information and the corrections of more details; the modifications were precisely highlighted both in the covering letter and in the manuscript (in the latter using blue colour).
Under Section 1 (Introduction) Authors added characteristic examples to “other damages”, therefore the category of “other damages” can be understood.
The subsection 2.1. (HESD welding and testing) has been modified. The term “Shock absorption energy (J)” has been changed in Table 3, “Charpy impact energy (J)” has been used. Real values of pulse current and pulse time ranges have been added to Table 5. The subsections have been renumbered, hence 2.2. subsection can be found in the manuscript.
Subsection 3.3. (Process optimization) has been amended substantially; the second part of the subsection is more substantial after the two modifications.
Several minor modifications have been carried out for which have increased the level of the manuscript.
The whole manuscript has been checked; the references for the tables and the figures have been controlled and referred. The list of reference has been corrected; the numbers of the references in square brackets have been deleted.
