Analysis of Acoustic Emission (AE) Signals for Quality Monitoring of Laser Lap Microwelding

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is interesting. My comments:

1. Figure quality should be improved (Fig. 9, 10)
2. Figures should become black and white compatible (Fig. 6, 7, 8, 12, 13)
3. Font size in several graphs should be increased
4. English can be improved in some phrases (generally ok)
5. Add information of use of such welding and such NDT method for real world applications. Where can be used in real projects? Which are the benefits? Which are the issues with?
6. The conclusions are very narrow. Strengthen conclusions. Include description of your work, quantitative findings, guidelines for practicing engineers, future research needs.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

My advise to the authors:

In the abstract and conclusion, specify that stainless steel sheets are used for microwelding.

Keywords “Micro-welding, Monitoring, Laser", replace with "Monitoring of laser microwelding".

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript appears to be only mildy superficially different from a manuscript published in 2020 in Applied Sciences entitled "Analysis of a Sound Signal for Quality Monitoring in Laser Microlap Welding" by two of the same authors, Kuo and Lu. Large parts of the introduction are the same, and also the experimental set up. The first paragraph of results and discussion is almost word for word identical between the 2020 paper and this manuscript. The analysis is the same, only maybe a little more detail is included in the 2021 manuscript. I am sorry to say this, but this struck me as a poor attempt at trying to repackage old data to get another publication in 2021 with the same data study published in 2020. IF there really is real difference between the experimental results and analysis, the paper needs to be completely re-written, and more detailed explanation provided showing how the new study is different and not just the 2020 study in a new "outfit". 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

Thank you for your thoughtful responses to my comments. I would suggest (but do not require) adding the following statement to the manuscript, which you put in your response to me.

"In the paper published in 2020 (or you could say in the previous work), the signals analyzed ... is audible sound collected by a MEMS microphone with frequency range below 10 kHz. In this paper, the signal ... is the Acoustic Emission (AE) signal...with a range from 50 kHz to 400 kHz"

This single sentence specifying the difference in frequency range really set the right context for me as a reader to interpret the earlier work in 2020, and this current submission, as different measurements on the same system and therefore valuable from what they can tell you.