Surface Morphology Analysis of Laser Shock Peened 20CrMnTi Steel: A Statistical Evaluation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work analyses the surface morphology of a steel under Laser Shock Peening, in case of single and multiple impacts. The topic is interesting, the methodology is clear and the results are relevant. However, some clarifications and modifications are needed.

General comments

- Check the units of measurement: kg and not Kg, MPa and not Mpa.

Introduction

- The first paragraph has no references.

Section 2.1

- "To further... 20 hours": Provide more detailed information.

- Table 1: Is it wt.%?

- Fig. 1: A higher magnification would be better.

Section 2.2

- "The surface morphology... the representative value": A drawing could help the reader, possibly it can be integrated in Fig. 3.

- "(ETS), as shown in Figure 3a and 3b": Figure 3 or 4?

- "Where d represents": d=dx=dy?

- A table with all the information about the tested specimens would help the reader.

Section 3.1

- The description of Fig. 8 must be improved.

- Fig. 10: Some data points have the error bar, others not, why?

- "The arithmetic mean .... of the specimens": Explain better.

In some cases, English should be improved: "were first performed a", "were performed a statistical analysis"... 

Author Response

Dear Editor(s)/Reviewer,

 

We would like to submit our revised manuscript for further consideration. We have made significant improvements based on the feedback received from the reviewers. The main modifications made in this revised version are as follows:

 

• We have revised the title and enhanced the abstract section to better reflect the content of the paper.
• We have provided more detailed descriptions of the experimental procedures, analysis methods, and equipment used.
• We have added a section in the introduction to explain the novelty of our work.
• We have improved the quality of some of the figures.
• In the analysis and discussion section, we have included additional beneficial discussions.
• We have made improvements to the conclusion section.
• We have corrected several spelling errors.
• We have made adjustments to a few references.
• We have repositioned the figures and text to facilitate better page layout.

 

We believe that these revisions have strengthened the manuscript and have addressed the concerns raised by the reviewers. We hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication. For further details on the specific modifications made, please refer to our response to the reviewers' comments（Please see the attachment）.

 

Thank you for considering our revised manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jiaoyi Wu

Address: School of Mechanical Engineering, Jiangsu University, Xuefu Road 301, Zhenjiang 212013, Peoples R China.

E-mail: [email protected]

Tel: +86-15716103650

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The main remark on the article is the lack of a description of the methods for measuring topography and residual stresses. So my recomendation is major revision.

There are also inaccuracies in the description of the samples:

line 67. There is no molybdenum in the composition presented in table 1.

line 100. For a reader not familiar with the LUO method (the reviewer also belongs to them), it is important to know the details of sample preparation before measuring roughness and residual stresses. Is it only an alcohol wash?

line 118. typo. fig 4 not 3

line 177 Pattern S-1 is mentioned here for the first time. Figure 8 shows data for samples S-1, S-2, S-3, S-4. There is no mention of these samples in the text. It is logical if for the first time these samples will be mentioned earlier ... for example, in lines 140-150.

And another stupid question. What is an laser impact (lines 176-178.....)? Is that one 20ns laser pulse?

Author Response

Dear Editor(s)/Reviewer,

 

We would like to submit our revised manuscript for further consideration. We have made significant improvements based on the feedback received from the reviewers. The main modifications made in this revised version are as follows:

 

• We have revised the title and enhanced the abstract section to better reflect the content of the paper.
• We have provided more detailed descriptions of the experimental procedures, analysis methods, and equipment used.
• We have added a section in the introduction to explain the novelty of our work.
• We have improved the quality of some of the figures.
• In the analysis and discussion section, we have included additional beneficial discussions.
• We have made improvements to the conclusion section.
• We have corrected several spelling errors.
• We have made adjustments to a few references.
• We have repositioned the figures and text to facilitate better page layout.

 

We believe that these revisions have strengthened the manuscript and have addressed the concerns raised by the reviewers. We hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication. For further details on the specific modifications made, please refer to our response to the reviewers' comments（Please see the attachment）.

 

Thank you for considering our revised manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jiaoyi Wu

Address: School of Mechanical Engineering, Jiangsu University, Xuefu Road 301, Zhenjiang 212013, Peoples R China.

E-mail: [email protected]

Tel: +86-15716103650

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

- Very long title. Please shorten it.

- Add to the beginning of abstract few sentences about this topic. Give reader clue about this topic. Than shorten discovering and also add motivation for this research.

- Author should add to the end of Introduction detailed explanation of novelty of this manuscript.

- Between value and unit should be gap.

- Table 1 is in wt. % or at. %?

- In all graphs unit should be in brackets ().

- Author should add description af all used equipment for all measurement. 3D profilometer-surface morphology, SEM...

- Fig. 9 from what kind of SEM is it? Objective? Author should write it in the name of Figure.

- Text in all figures must be easy readable. Please make font size in all pictures the same like other text.

- Chapter 3. Results and Discussion is without discussion. Author has to discuss and compare his results with results in other studies. Please create rich and valuable discussion.

- I think it should be ISO 25178-2.

- Scale in Fig. 9 is not readable.

Author Response

Dear Editor(s)/Reviewer,

 

We would like to submit our revised manuscript for further consideration. We have made significant improvements based on the feedback received from the reviewers. The main modifications made in this revised version are as follows:

 

• We have revised the title and enhanced the abstract section to better reflect the content of the paper.
• We have provided more detailed descriptions of the experimental procedures, analysis methods, and equipment used.
• We have added a section in the introduction to explain the novelty of our work.
• We have improved the quality of some of the figures.
• In the analysis and discussion section, we have included additional beneficial discussions.
• We have made improvements to the conclusion section.
• We have corrected several spelling errors.
• We have made adjustments to a few references.
• We have repositioned the figures and text to facilitate better page layout.

 

We believe that these revisions have strengthened the manuscript and have addressed the concerns raised by the reviewers. We hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication. For further details on the specific modifications made, please refer to our response to the reviewers' comments（Please see the attachment）.

 

Thank you for considering our revised manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jiaoyi Wu

Address: School of Mechanical Engineering, Jiangsu University, Xuefu Road 301, Zhenjiang 212013, Peoples R China.

E-mail: [email protected]

Tel: +86-15716103650

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors answered all the questions I noted....except one. But the reviewer himself is to blame for this. In the recommendations, I asked is only washing in alcohol was used (line 100 of the first version of the article, and line 112 of the revised article)? But at the same time I was talking about some LUO method (!?) with which I am not familiar. Dear authors please excuse the typo. Of course I meant LSP. And my question was related to the fate of 100 microns aluminum foil.
In conclusion, my recommendation is to accept the paper in present form. And the question of whether it makes sense to write about  what happens with glue and aluminum I leave to the authors to decide.

Author Response

Dear Editor(s)/Reviewer,

 

In the current revised version of the manuscript, we have addressed the comments from the reviewers and made several adjustments to the manuscript. The main modifications include:

 

• We have reorganized the manuscript, adding new references while also removing or replacing some existing ones.
• We have made improvements to Figures 6, 12, and 13, enhancing their clarity and presentation.
• We have added Section 3.4 to facilitate necessary discussions and result comparisons.
• We have repositioned the figures and text to facilitate better page layout.

 

We sincerely hope that these changes meet your expectations and make our study more appealing to the readership. For further details on the specific modifications made, please refer to our response to the reviewers' comments. Thank you once again for your valuable time and professional guidance.

 

Best regards,

 

Jiaoyi Wu

Address: School of Mechanical Engineering, Jiangsu University, Xuefu Road 301, Zhenjiang 212013, Peoples R China.

E-mail: [email protected]

Tel: +86-15716103650

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

- Figs. 6. 12 and 13 still doesn't have readable text of labels and axes.

- Discussion was not add at all. Author should create rich discussion and compare his results with results in other studies.

Author Response

Dear Editor(s)/Reviewer,

 

In the current revised version of the manuscript, we have addressed the comments from the reviewers and made several adjustments to the manuscript. The main modifications include:

 

• We have reorganized the manuscript, adding new references while also removing or replacing some existing ones.
• We have made improvements to Figures 6, 12, and 13, enhancing their clarity and presentation.
• We have added Section 3.4 to facilitate necessary discussions and result comparisons.
• We have repositioned the figures and text to facilitate better page layout.

 

We sincerely hope that these changes meet your expectations and make our study more appealing to the readership. For further details on the specific modifications made, please refer to our response to the reviewers' comments. Thank you once again for your valuable time and professional guidance.

 

Best regards,

 

Jiaoyi Wu

Address: School of Mechanical Engineering, Jiangsu University, Xuefu Road 301, Zhenjiang 212013, Peoples R China.

E-mail: [email protected]

Tel: +86-15716103650

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf