Numerical Simulation and Surface Properties of 42CrMo Steel Treated by Plasma Nitriding and Laser Quenching
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors .Please find below my coments to be considered.
I found Your publication possible to be published but some doubts appeared and in my opinion should be explained.
They are presented in order of appearance in the text (fragments are highlited - enclosed file)
1. Line 111 -"glancing angle"; I think "incidence angle". The term You used suggests using non-symmetrical diffraction geometry. If so could You comment on it? Was it the GIXRD geometry used?
2. Line 206 - Figure 1 - suggests that thickness of white layer can be up to 100 micrometers..It is possible of course, but experimental data denay. Please explain, modify.
3.Line 267 - Figure 5. The quality of images is not good. Nitrided structures - magnification to low. Laser quenched - too high. No details, especially in fig 5a and 5b can be distinguished. In case 5c and d - wider area could be presented showing uniformity (or non) of the layer
4. Line 284 - can not judge the amount of particular phases on the base of peak height!. If You want - deliver quantitative analysis results.
5. Line 314 - Figure 7. Were the hardness distribution curves made on the base of single measurement? Can not see the error bars, what suggests only single measurement. Please explain or provide more data on it.
6. Line 342. Figure 9 . This is as it it stated - simulation. Show experimental results.
7. Line 370 - Title - this is not discussion but conclusions
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
感谢您指出本文中的问题。具体答复见附件。
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “Numerical Simulation and Surface Properties of 42CrMo Steel Treated by Plasma Nitriding and Laser Quenching”, by Y.H. Zhang, Y.X. Wang, and J.W. Wang, highlights a complex method to conduct scientific research, by combining the experimental plasma and laser systems, with numerical simulations. The paper can be accepted after minor changes. My comments are below.
1) Section 3.1.2: Do you have some references for the equations specific to the mathematical model of laser quenching? Please insert the references used in order to write the equations.
2) Section 3.1.3.: Because the authors have used algorithm-based methods, it is necessary to insert a diagram of the algorithmic steps, in order to explain the used algorithm. Because your manuscript title starts with “numerical simulations…”, it is mandatory to explain the used algorithms, not only to show the results from those algorithms.
Author Response
Thank you for pointing out the problems in this paper. Please see the attachment for specific reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is interesting and shows too many results. However, some adequations should be considered to improve the quality of the document:
1. Subsections 3.1. Numerical Simulations, 3.1.1. Mathematical model of plasma, 3.1.2. Mathematical Model of Laser Quenching are not results. Please move subsections 3.1., 3.1.1., 3.1.2., from section 3. Results to section 2. Materials and methods as follows: 2.5 Numerical simulations, 2.5.1. Plasma Nitriding Mathematical Model and 2.5.2. Mathematical Model of Laser Quenching from line 113 to 195.
2. The authors confused the discussion section with the conclusion section.
3. Missing discussion due to misinterpretation of discussion and conclusions sections. The discussion should be a relevant interpretation of the own results using references from other authors. Provide an extensive discussion using relevant references from other authors to support the study findings in the Results and discussion section.
4. Please change the section title “3. Results” to “3. Results and discussion”.
5. Please change the section title 4. Discussion to 4. Conclusions.
6. In Figure 5, the authors can include additional microphase with higher magnification in order to identify the phase structures properly.
7. How many repetitions were performed for the wear tests for statistical significance of wear and coefficient of friction results?
8. Are wear tests and volumetric wear determination in accordance with any DIN, ASTM or ISO standards?
9. Can the authors explain why the coefficient of friction of 460 °C PN8h and 460 °C PN16h is initially lower than +LQ and subsequently increases both cases?
10. In Table 5 the minimum amount of wear is 1.024 mm3. Please correct this in Abstract and Conclusion that are indicated with 1.027mm3.
11. Please show micrographs of the wear tracks and describe the wear mechanisms.
Author Response
Thank you for pointing out the problems in this paper. Please see the attachment for specific reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
