Numerical Simulation and Verification of Laser-Polishing Free Surface of S136D Die Steel
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript “Numerical simulation and verification of laser polishing free 3 surface of S136D die steel”, describes a study of the influence of laser energy density on the surface roughness. The results were analyzed for the numerical model in relation to the experimental data. Please respond to the following comments:
Section 1: The last paragraph should summarize the section, purpose, and scope of the manuscript.
Section 2.1: What equipment was used to analyze the chemical composition?
Section 2.2: Information about the laser used (model) and description of the marked equipment (Fig. 1) are missing.
Fig. 2. Which determines the random distribution of the relationship between ED and RA for values below ED 20? The explanation contained in Section 2.4 should be expanded upon. Are the results statistically representative?
Eq. (2): How is Fv defined?
Line 210: Check the reference to Eq. (5).
Section 3.6: How does the discretization error for element type and size affect the result? Information about the number of elements, nodes, degrees of freedom, applied solver are missing.
Fig. 6. The mesh is unreadable.
Section 4.2: The actual weld pool width and depth should be compared to the simulated values. What are the error values? The section should be expanded.
Fig. 9. The enlarged graphs of the indicated range are unreadable.
Section 5: What laser energy density values are optimal? How does surface morphology affect the melting process? How does pool melting time affect roughness? The conclusions are general and should be rewritten.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, dear editor
I had some difficulties following the details of this manuscript, hence, I advise the editorial board to include more reviewers.
Here are some points that require discussion or correction:
Line 2: What is meant by free? What is a free surface?
Line 3: kai (Capitalization)
Line 13 ff: "The model uses a moving laser heat source to study the effects of capillary pressure and thermocapillary pressure in the laser polishing process, which is helpful to understand the contribution of capillary pressure and thermocapillary pressure in the polishing process."
Unnecessary doubling
Line 22: "Paragraph"
Line 31: "bringing about" , wording
Line 34: …the laser beam the material … fragment, wording
Line 35: …amount micro-peak … wording (add “a” micro peak)
Line 55: Works (no idea what this should mean)
Line 62: "proved", replace by proven
Line 76 ff: unclear
Line 78: tm-maxcan , typo
Line 79: fcr, If, typo
Line 99: steel.is , typo
Figure 1: A two axis rotation table is mentioned, but it seems to act not as a rotating but rather linear moving device. The gas bottle is labelled with Ar but later (line 180) nitrogen is stated in the text.
Line 131: The parameters D and FO are not clear to me. Can you provide a drawing showing these values?
Line 136 ff: Since not only the energy density is varied but also several other processing parameters it seems conceptually weak to reduce the obtained sample roughness on the ED alone. As we can see from the graph and table 2 a minute change in ED has a strong effect on the roughness. All of the following explanations in that paragraph are not based on results of this study but on explanations from elsewhere. Further, I should be considered that the work presented in [21] is based on pulsed laser irradiation.
Line 143: SOM is not explained
Line 149: typo, capitalization
Line 150 and Line 152 peak and valey numbers are not relevant, only the p-v distance.
Line 151: Indicate that this is sample 11 not just “the polished sample”
Fig. 3: indicate the trace of the laser movement (obvious lines show up in the topography), This is especially important as directions x and Y are used later in the text.
Line 162: Is it true that Fig. 4a represents the X and Y spatial frequencies of the initial surface? Why can there be a different behavior in X and Y on the initial surface without LP and without any preferred orientation?
Line 163: capital X
Line 164: explain WEDM
Line 167: typo
Figure7: Axis label “temparation”
Since I am not an expert in these simulations I can’t comment on parts 3 and 4.
Line 409: The manuscript is not finished
Line 414: The manuscript is not finished
Line 417: The manuscript is not finished
Throughout the manuscript: Check for consistency! Either you use a blank between a value and the unit or you don’t. Avoid however a blank between µ and m
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revision manuscript takes into account the comments. The manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for revising the manuscript according to my comments. The work has clearly improved.
