The Effect of Plume Generated on the Microstructural Behavior of the Weld Mixed Zone in High-Speed Laser Dissimilar Welding

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

To be published as an original paper, in many cases clear explanations must be made and thorough discussion ensued. REJECT and RESUBMIT was suggested.

There should be quantitative results and corresponding conclusions in the abstract.

The preamble clarifies the significance of this research, and should include all relevant research.

"The results show that the atom 55 movement of Al and Ti in the weld plume affects the behavior of elemental components 56 distributed in the weld fusion zone.". The conclusion cannot appear in the introduction.

There is no need to describe the background and phenomenon too much in the conclusion.

This article is more like a report than a research paper.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments on our paper (metals-1379669).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Too many self-citations with complete disregard for other scientists. Except for the authors, no one in the world is engaged in such research?
2. In the keywords, Al and Ti should be changed on aluminum and titanium.
3. Too many of the same words have been used, so it is difficult to understand the essence of the author's thoughts. It is necessary to rephrase using synonyms and pronouns, and also remove repeated phrases. Even in the title of the paper there are three 'weld'.
4. References to the primary data sources should be added in Table 2. What is the "Vapor pressure (K) (1kPa)" indicator and where did it come from?
5. The flow rate of argon shielding gas was 35 liters per minute, which is quite a lot. However, it is absolutely unclear why it was necessary to protect aluminum above at such a flow rate, while leaving reactive titanium unshielded. Secondly, the authors have not indicated the effect of shielding gas on the formation of plume and the properties of the welded joints. There is no doubt that titanium was greatly contaminated with oxigen and nitrogen, which can be seen in Figure 2. This had a significant effect on the properties of the welded joints. This point should be considered in the paper.
6. The manuscript seems to be dealing with "the microstructural behavior", but the microstructure itself is not given. The results of the TEM analysis in Figure 6 are not discussed, probably the authors themselves do not really understand what is depicted there.
7. The discussion is very sparse. It is not clear how plume from the weld root has been taken into account.
8. Where did the diagram in Figure 10 come from? Are these the results of simulations or suggestions of the authors?
9. Conclusions should be formulated clearly point by point, what results have been obtained and what they mean. There are too many words in this edition with too little sense. The same applies to the abstract.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments on our paper (metals-1379669).

Reviewer Comments:

 

1. Too many self-citations with complete disregard for other scientists. Except for the authors, no one in the world is engaged in such research?

Answer: Thank you very much for your reviewing. We apologize for not being able to express the hard work of many researchers as we summarize the contents of our in-depth research based on our past research.  All papers referenced during the study have been added.

1. In the keywords, Al and Ti should be changed on aluminum and titanium.

Answer: Thank you for your careful review. The keywords are modified.

 

1. Too many of the same words have been used, so it is difficult to understand the essence of the author's thoughts. It is necessary to rephrase using synonyms and pronouns, and also remove repeated phrases. Even in the title of the paper there are three 'weld'.

Answer: Thank you very much for your reviewing. I’m sorry about insufficient explanation, and so all the explanation sentences are modified.

Ex) Title was changed as “The effect of plume generated on the microstructural behavior of the weld mixed zone in high-speed laser dissimilar welding”

Ex) The article has been revised throughout and repeated terms have been removed as best as possible.

 

1. References to the primary data sources should be added in Table 2. What is the "Vapor pressure (K) (1kPa)" indicator and where did it come from?

 

Answer: Thank you for your comment. The primary data sources modified with including references(ref.23, 29-32). "Vapor pressure (K) (1kPa)" means It represents the absolute temperature at which a vapor pressure of 1 kPa is reached. A lower temperature value suggests the possibility that the vapor pressure may be higher under the same conditions.

 

 

1. The flow rate of argon shielding gas was 35 liters per minute, which is quite a lot. However, it is absolutely unclear why it was necessary to protect aluminum above at such a flow rate, while leaving reactive titanium unshielded. Secondly, the authors have not indicated the effect of shielding gas on the formation of plume and the properties of the welded joints. There is no doubt that titanium was greatly contaminated with oxigen and nitrogen, which can be seen in Figure 2. This had a significant effect on the properties of the welded joints. This point should be considered in the paper.

 

Answer: Thank you for your careful review. The shielding gas was used to prevent oxidation of the upper surface and to prevent interference with the laser beam irradiation by the generated plume. The effect of shielding gas and oxidation condition were explain in “Materials and Experimental procedures” 65-67 line and “Results and Discussion” 97-100, 105-113 line

1. The manuscript seems to be dealing with "the microstructural behavior", but the microstructure itself is not given. The results of the TEM analysis in Figure 6 are not discussed, probably the authors themselves do not really understand what is depicted there.

Answer: Thank you very much for your reviewing. I’m sorry about insufficient explanation. And so all the explanation sentences and Figures of TEM are modified.

Figure 7 and 165-919

 

1. The discussion is very sparse. It is not clear how plume from the weld root has been taken into account.

Answer: Thank you very much for your reviewing. I’m sorry about insufficient explanation, upper side and lower side plume were analyzed using spectroscopic measurement, respectively. And the explanation sentences and Figure are modified.

In Figure 2, the contents of using the spectrometer up and down are additionally indicated with explain in 68-72 line.

 

1. Where did the diagram in Figure 10 come from? Are these the results of simulations or suggestions of the authors?

 

Answer: Thank you for your careful review. Figure 11(Fig.10) is not simulation data. Through previous research with Osaka University JWRI, we have researched keyhole shapes such as Al metal. In order to know the composition of the low-density part inside the keyhole, plume observation was additionally conducted in this study.

 

1. Conclusions should be formulated clearly point by point, what results have been obtained and what they mean. There are too many words in this edition with too little sense. The same applies to the abstract.

 

Answer: Thank you for your careful review. I’m sorry about insufficient explanation of Conclusion and Abstract. All the explanation sentences of conclusion and abstract are modified.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript needs to be rebuilt. Authors should consider the following comments 1. The abstract is rather an Introduction!. Add the purpose of the work, methods used and results 2.What is the purpose of the work in the introduction? line 55-57 these are the conclusions! 3. The mechanical properties in Table 2 are missing? 4. Enlarge Figures 2, and 3. Increase the font size for the content of mass elements and Fig 7 5. TEM drawings are hard to read! It is difficult to see the dislocation density?. 6. Remove citations in Conclusions!. Provide 3-4 key conclusions resulting directly from the research! 7. Add literature to the discussion section!

Author Response

Dear Reviewers;

 

Thank you very much for your comments on our paper (metals-1379669).

 

Reviewer Comments:

 

The manuscript needs to be rebuilt. Authors should consider the following comments

1. The abstract is rather an Introduction!. Add the purpose of the work, methods used and results

• Thank you very much for your reviewing. I’m sorry about insufficient explanation of abstract. And so all the explanation sentences modified with addition the purpose of the work, methods used and results

 

2. What is the purpose of the work in the introduction? line 55-57 these are the conclusions!

• Thank you for your careful review. Relevant studies have been added to the introduction and conclusions have been excluded. To clarify the contents of the study, a state diagram was added and the purpose of the study was emphasized.

3. The mechanical properties in Table 2 are missing?

Answer: Thank you very much for your reviewing The primary data and it’s sources modified with including references(ref.23, 29-32).

4. Enlarge Figures 2, and 3. Increase the font size for the content of mass elements and Fig 7

Answer: Thank you for your careful review. All the Figures are modified.

 

5. TEM drawings are hard to read! It is difficult to see the dislocation density?.

Answer: Thank you for your careful review. . I’m sorry about insufficient explanation. And so all the explanation sentences and Figures of TEM are modified.

6. Remove citations in Conclusions!. Provide 3-4 key conclusions resulting directly from the research!

 

• Answer: Thank you for your comment. All the explanation sentences of conclusion are modified.

 

7. Add literature to the discussion section!

• Answer: Thank you for your careful review. The description of the conclusion and discussion part has been changed, and the analysis result has also been changed and explanation has been added.
• It has been rewritten by unifying the results and the discussion part, and adding the story of discussion content as a whole.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After modification, this paper can be accepted.

Author Response

Dear. Reviewer

Thank you very much for your comments on our paper.

Corrected English and typos throughout the paper, and completed corrections by adding insufficient explanations.
thank you very much.

Reviewer 2 Report

If the editors consider this manuscript worthy of publication in the journal, English should be improved and the manuscript should be double-checked for typos, inaccuracies and negligence (for example, 'CU' in Table 1, designations of the material properties and unification of rounding orders in Table 2, etc.)

Author Response

Dear. Reviewer

Thank you very much for your comments on our paper.

Reviewer Comments:

1. English should be improved and the manuscript should be double-checked for typos, inaccuracies and negligence (for example, 'CU' in Table 1, designations of the material properties and unification of rounding orders in Table 2, etc.)

       - The unit and typos are completely modified in Table 1 and 2.

         And corrected English and typos throughout the paper, and completed               corrections by adding insufficient explanations.

         thank you very much.