Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Laser-Welded Joint of Tantalum and Stainless Steel
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper is well written! It is clear and interesting for a reader. As for experimental part, I have no comments. But theoretical part has a number of shorcomings: 1) Authors should indicate what ab initio software package was used (VASP, QE, full potentiial one ?) and what was the pseudopotential? Another issue is the exchange-correletion functional used (LDA, GGA?) In other words I'd like to see more details of calculations. 2) Second issue is the justification of obtained theoretival results. It is necessary to compare the results of calculations, at least for Fe and Ta, with experimental data and thus to justify parameters of callculations. This would give some insurance that the results obtained for TaFe2 and TaCr2 are also relevant
Author Response
Dear Reviewer.
Thank you for reviewing my paper and for your guidance in your busy schedule. I would like to respond to the two questions you raised as follows.
First of all, regarding the calculation of first principles, the author has added relevant contents in the paper according to your comments (see lines 96-104 in the paper), and added two references (see references 27-28).
Regarding the second question, the applicant has also found data on the modulus of elasticity of iron and tantalum from the relevant literature (see references 29-30), and has also explained this in the thesis (see lines 260-262 in the thesis). The rest of the data cannot be verified one by one by the authors at present due to the experimental equipment.
The above is my reply regarding your valuable comments, thanks.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presented the welded joint properties of Ta and stainless steel. It has a lot of merits and it provides some additional insight on top the current knowledge on this topic.
Abstract: It is clear and well read. However, it is a bit long. Please shorten by indicating the principle outcomes.
Introduction: It included a wide variety of literatures to justify the need for this research.
Experimental: Please merge Tables 1 and 2. There is a mixture of Fig. and Figure throughout the manuscript. Please stick to just one. It is well known that for lap shear joint the best result is obtained when the overlap is equal to the width. In your experiment the width is 35 mm, but the overlap was 20 mm. Please provide the reason for choosing a different overlap than the width. Please include all the welding parameters in a table form to make it easy for the reader.
How many samples were chosen for the tensile test? Just one or a few? For statistical purpose, please include the deviation for the tensile results.
Please include a reference for the tensile rate of 1mm/min.
"The final result is the average of the three groups of samples." The conditions for these three groups are unclear.
Include a scale bar in figure 4.
Figure 6: Why only areas A, B and C were chosen for EDS? What is the significance?
Figure 10c: The distance from where?
The conclusion is drawn based on the experimental observations.
The manuscript definitely have merits and thus I recommend to accept after addressing the comments above.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer.
Thank you for reviewing my paper in your busy schedule. Regarding your valuable comments, the author has made changes according to the actual situation, as specified below.
For the abstract section, the author has made deletions according to your comments, while keeping the key points (see lines 10-18 in the paper).
For the issue of figures, the authors did not combine the figures because the authors were trying to compare the contents.
For the lap volume issue, the width as well as the lap volume is not consistent due to the author's material size itself and the author's need to cut out standard tensile specimens after welding.
For the number of samples, the authors chose three specimens, and the margin of error was stated in the paper (see lines 233-236 in the paper).
For the problem of Figure 4, the authors have included the scale in the paper.
For the EDS region problem, the authors have stated in the paper (see lines 153-155 in the paper)
For Figure 10c, the authors have illustrated it by redrawing Figure 10c.
The above is the author's response to your valuable comments, thank you again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors please provide your response of the reviewer in a standard way not just in a vague way. Please provide line by line response and mention where you made those responses in your manuscript.
Please remember reviewer's work is voluntary and you should make the job easier.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer.
Thank you for your patience in reviewing the manuscript. Regarding your first review comments, we are deeply sorry because the authors did not express their reply well, meanwhile, the authors hereby reply to your second review comments item by item.
1. Regarding your abstract issue, the authors were advised to shorten it by the main results. Therefore, the authors have revised the abstract after re-refining it, and the revised part is reflected in lines 10 to 22 of the paper.
2. In Experimental, you raised several questions, to which the authors respond here.
First, you suggested the authors to merge Table 1 and Table 2, but since the authors of Table 1 and Table 2 express the elements of two parent materials, their elements are not the same, and if they are merged, the elements do not correspond in the table column direction, which will cause Table 1 and Table 2 to be simply superimposed. At the same time, the elements listed in Table 2 are more than those in Table 1, and when combined, ta parent material will have an extra space. If the way of listing the elements of both parent materials is used, and then if a certain parent material does not have such elements to draw a slash below, it will cause the table to be too long. Therefore, I hope you can understand that the authors, on balance, would like to keep the original table setup.
Secondly, you suggested that the pictures in the author's paper are mixed together. For this point, the author's intention is that since the picture part reacts to the content as a whole, putting the pictures together can facilitate the comparison of the situation obtained from the experiment. Also, for the convenience of the reviewers, the authors have labeled the images with serial numbers and also indicated what the serial numbers represent below the images. If the images were to be taken apart and the paper reworked, the authors could not think of a way to rearrange the paper in a short period of time and hope that the reviewers would reconsider this point of view. If the reviewer feels that some of the images are really confusing and affect the expression of the paper, I hope you will criticize and correct them, and the author will follow the requirements and revise them carefully.
Next, you also suggested the reason for the difference in width and lap volume. As the author did not understand the laser welding process, the width of the weld and the amount of lap will have an impact on the welding effect, think only to ensure that the amount of lap is greater than the heat-affected zone can be. And the authors did not find references to the lap volume and the influence of the base material width on the welding effect, so in order to facilitate subsequent calculations, the lap volume of 20 mm. For the point you mentioned, the authors will continue to study the point in future research work, thank you.
Finally, you suggested that the authors list the welding parameters in tabular form, the authors have listed according to your request. As shown in Table 4 (line 77 in the paper). Also, the authors have added a description of the language of the table insertion in line 76 of the paper and have modified the subsequent table serial numbers in the paper accordingly.
3. You also mentioned the number of samples and the stretching deviation in the next section. The authors have clarified the deviations and the number of samples in lines 241 and 242 of the paper in response to your valuable comments.
4. Regarding your reference to the tensile rate, the authors have listed the relevant references in lines 93 and 94 of the paper.
5. Regarding the three sets of conditions that are not yet clear. Since this point is repeated with the third question, the author's answer is the same as the third point.
6. Based on your comments, the authors have added a scale to Figure 4.
7. You raised in this point, the significance of choosing A B C. The authors believe that since the paper here is exploring the issue of weld organization, the vicinity of the fusion line as well as the middle of the weld is the most representative, and the organization of A and B near the fusion line is clearly different, so the authors chose to analyze both areas, and finally the middle C area of the weld.
8. Regarding the distance issue in Figure 10c, the authors have explained it at the bottom of Figure 10c.
9. It should be noted that when re-reading the article, the authors found that the words in Table 1 and Table 2 in the paper were expressed inaccurately when it comes to the residual amounts of Ta and Fe, and the authors have taken the initiative to modify them in Table 1 as well as in Table 2.
The author has made a PDF file for your review. Finally, thank you again for your second review of my paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made improvements to the manuscript. It can be published now.
