Laser Cladding of Al 102 Powder on Al 4047 with Direct Energy Deposition
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents a laboratory study of Laser Cladding of Al 102 Powder on Al 4047 with Direct Energy Deposition, and the abstract is well written, clearly stating the purpose of the study, key experimental observations, and main conclusions. However, the introduction needs improvement, as the level of literature review is insufficient to justify the need for this research. The cited articles are mostly old, and additional current articles should be included to better contextualize the study.
The experimental section is clear and reproducible, although Figure 1 is unnecessary and can be removed to save space. Instead, the name of the equipment is sufficient to reproduce the experiment. In addition, Line 125/126 should use the same name to avoid confusion between scanning speed and head transport speed.
Regarding Table 3, the scan speed column is redundant and can be removed. This information can be added to the table caption instead. Furthermore, it is unclear whether all of the multipath cladding followed the same direction. The authors should clarify this point in the manuscript.
Finally, Figure 3 should include a scale bar to provide a visual reference for the reader.
Overall, the manuscript is scientifically sound and the results are presented clearly. The conclusion that multipass laser cladding through overlapping is suitable for the remanufacturing process is well-supported by the experimental observations, and it will be of interest to readers working in this field. The reviewer recommends the manuscript with the above comments addressed.
Author Response
Thanks for the discerning review.
As I corrected the contents you said, the quality of the thesis I wrote improved even more.
The requested amendments are summarized in the attached file.
Thanks again for your help.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is on topic in the field of experimental investigation on laser cladding of Al 102 powder on Al 4047 with direct energy deposition (DED). The research results are interesting and the manuscript is recommended for publication. However, several points should be clarified before publishing.
1. Line 56. What "DMD" means?
2. Line 69. The phrase "a crack- and pore-free specimen without cracks and pores" is not correct.
3. Lines 113 and 131, 132. There is a size mismatch. Specimen size is specified as 50 x 50 mm, but edge distances of 10 mm and 40 mm long path are also specified.
4. Line 117. Has the effect of powder particle size on the process been investigated?
5. Lines 191-194. It is desirable to provide an equation for calculating the dilution rate. It is also desirable to present these results in the form of a table.
6. Lines 255-257. The statement “As for the order of increase, the hardness of the fusion zone, … , was the highest, followed by the heat-affected zone…” is not supported by research results.
7. 4.4 Multi-path experiments. The results of this subsection are not fully described. The zone sizes are not specified, the results of hardness measurements are not given, there is no comparison with the results of "single path experiments".
8. Lines 272, 273. The statement "...the experimental considered conditions were shown to have a significant effect for multi-path cladding" is not justified.
9. Conclusion. In view of the comments made, not all points in the "Conclusion" are justified.
10. References. The authors included no one reference to article from the Metals journal to which they submit the manuscript. How can this be explained? Are the authors unfamiliar with the articles from this journal? The topic of the manuscript does not coincide with the topic of the journal? Links to articles from this journal in recent years (2021-2023) will increase the relevance of the manuscript topic for Metals journal.
Author Response
Thanks for the valuable comments.
As I corrected the contents you said, the quality of the thesis I wrote improved even more.
The requested amendments are summarized in the attached file.
Thanks again for your help.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have improved the manuscript. It can be accepted now.
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall Recommendation: Accept in present form.
