Mechanical Properties of White Metal on SCM440 Alloy Steel by Laser Cladding Treatment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the article is interesting and important in aspects of improving the methods of additive manufacturing. The title is adequate to the contribution. The theoretical background is understandable and used references sources are relevant. However, in my opinion, list of references could be extended with the latest studies on this topic. A content of the main section is presented clearly. I consider that the article is suitable for publishing in the MDPI Applied Sciences, but some details are missing:

My remarks concerning presented paper:

 

1. In my opinion Introduction should be improved. I suggest add more information and examples to better describe what other researchers have done in area of improving the bearing production. Also, chapter "Discussion " could be more combined with other published articles and the results achieved by other authors.
2. Every reference should be analyzed separately and points relevant to the presented paper should be presented. The authors should not use one sentence concerning a few references like in line 49 or 51.
3. Table 1 - incorrect table description.
4. Missing table 2 (reference line 78) and table 3 (reference line 131).
5. Figures 4 and Figure 5 requires detailed and extended signatures.

 

Author Response

Responses for Reviewers’ Comments

Ms. Ref. No.: applsci-1115923

Title: Comparison of Mechanical Properties and Surface Friction of White Metals Produced by Centrifugal Casting and Laser Cladding on SCM440

Authors: Jae-il Jeong 1, Jong-Hyoung Kim 2, Si-Geun Choi 2, Young-Tae Cho 3, Chan-Kyu Kim 3, and Ho Lee 1,*

We appreciate the constructive comments and suggestions made by the reviewers. We have revised our manuscript extensively according to the suggestions of the reviewers and believe that the paper will now be much more useful and interesting to readers of the Applied sciences. Below we address all the issues raised by the reviewers and describe in detail all the changes which we have made.

 

Comments of Reviewer #1:

The topic of the article is interesting and important in aspects of improving the methods of additive manufacturing. The title is adequate to the contribution. The theoretical background is understandable and used references sources are relevant. However, in my opinion, list of references could be extended with the latest studies on this topic. A content of the main section is presented clearly. I consider that the article is suitable for publishing in the MDPI Applied Sciences, but some details are missing:

1. In my opinion Introduction should be improved. I suggest add more information and examples to better describe what other researchers have done in area of improving the bearing production. Also, chapter "Discussion" could be more combined with other published articles and the results achieved by other authors.

Response:
According to the reviewer suggestion, the description of the surface treatment process and white metal, the necessity of laser cladding, and previous studies of other researchers were additionally written in paragraphs 2-5 in the "Introduction".

Also, "3. Results" was modified to "3. Results and discussion", and additional contents of the discussion were written.

- 3. Results and discussion,

- 3.1 Micro Vickers hardness testing in paragraph 1, 7~9 line, 14~16 line / paragraph 4 add

- 3.2 SEM microstructure analysis and EDS analysis, paragraph 4, 7, 8 add

2. Every reference should be analyzed separately and points relevant to the presented paper should be presented. The authors should not use one sentence concerning a few references like in line 49 or 51.

Response:

We agree with the reviewer's opinion that all references should be analyzed individually and that any issues related to the papers presented should be presented. Therefore, it has been modified to contain at least two references. Corrected references to everything in the introduction.

3. Table 1 - incorrect table description / Missing table 2 (reference line 78) and table 3 (reference line 131).

 Response:

The reviewer comment is correct. Tables 1, 2, and 3 were additionally written because the contents of the table are missing.

Table 1. : 2 Materials and Methods, 2.1 Powder and experimental materials

Table 2. : 2 Materials and Methods, 2.2 Test methods

Table 3. : 3 Results and Discussion, 3.2 SEM microstructure analysis and EDS analysis

4. Figures 4 and Figure 5 requires detailed and extended signatures

Response:

Figures 3, 4, and 5 have been changed to Figures 2, 3, and 4 since Figure 2 was deleted, and the detailed and expanded signatures of Figures 3 and 4 have been revised according to the reviewer's opinion.

 

5. When the content of the main text was reflected, I felt the need to revise the title and proceeded with the title correction as follows.

Comparison of Mechanical Properties and Surface Friction of White Metals Produced by Centrifugal Casting and Laser Cladding on SCM440

>> Mechanical properties of white metal on SCM440 by laser cladding treatment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting paper and the authors achieved promising results.

However, there serious stylistic error. Authors say about laser cladding, but it`s not the correct term since cladding is the bonding together of dissimilar metals (for instance, to manufacture coins from different metals). In fact, the technology that you used in your work is laser metal deposition, which also may be called fusion welding.

So, I strongly recommend using more correct terminology.

Author Response

Responses for Reviewers’ Comments

Ms. Ref. No.: applsci-1115923

Title: Comparison of Mechanical Properties and Surface Friction of White Metals Produced by Centrifugal Casting and Laser Cladding on SCM440

Authors: Jae-il Jeong ¹, Jong-Hyoung Kim ², Si-Geun Choi ², Young-Tae Cho ³, Chan-Kyu Kim ³, and Ho Lee ^1,*

We appreciate the constructive comments and suggestions made by the reviewers. We have revised our manuscript extensively according to the suggestions of the reviewers and believe that the paper will now be much more useful and interesting to readers of the Applied sciences. Below we address all the issues raised by the reviewers and describe in detail all the changes which we have made.

Comments of Reviewer #2:

This is an interesting paper and the authors achieved promising results.
However, there serious stylistic error. Authors say about laser cladding, but it`s not the correct term since cladding is the bonding together of dissimilar metals (for instance, to manufacture coins from different metals). In fact, the technology that you used in your work is laser metal deposition, which also may be called fusion welding. So, I strongly recommend using more correct terminology.

1. Response:

When referring to a recent reference paper, it appears to be using the term "laser cladding". However, according to the reviewer's suggestion, laser metal deposition was also written in the paragraph describing laser cladding ("Introduction", paragraph 5, line 2).

* Reference

A. A. Siddiqui; A. K. Dubey; Recent trends in laser cladding and surface alloying, Optics & Laser Technology. 2021, 134, 106619.

- J. D. Kim; E. J. Lee; C. G. Kim; The Study on Laser Cladding of Heat Resisting Steel Using EuTroLoy 16006 Powder(I) - Characteristics of 1 Pass Clad Layer with Process Parameters, Korean Soc. Mech. Eng. A. 2017, 41, 299-305.

In addition, When the content of the main text was reflected, I felt the need to revise the title and proceeded with the title correction as follows..

2. Response:

Comparison of Mechanical Properties and Surface Friction of White Metals Produced by Centrifugal Casting and Laser Cladding on SCM440

>> Mechanical properties of white metal on SCM440 by laser cladding treatment.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The current paper investigates the applicability of laser cladding treatment  for quick processing by studying the optimum laser parameters for laser cladding deposition by adding soft white metallic layer made from steel that is used in cylindrical applications. The evaluation is validated using hardness and other non destructive techniques to analyse the microstructure. The study determines the best conditions which best white layer quality at certain parameters given in the abstract. The study is experimental testing followed by experimental analysis in white metal layer surface treatment related field.  

The abstract needs to be improved, and must be updated. Lines 12-16 can be shortened or completely removed. Although the authors claim optimum conditions in the abstract but it is not clear why it was optimum? Based on what exactly, this must be clearly mentioned in the abstract as well as other most important findings in the study.

In all paper including abstract the authors must avoid using we, our …etc.

In the introduction, the literature review on past studies similar to the authors work is very minimal, this needs to be addressed and authors must reflect on past studies in open literature, discuss what has been done and what were the most important findings from their studies and how the authors current study brings new knowledge or interesting research to the field.

Line 61 please avoid bulk citations for only talking simple facts.

Line 64 did you measure the particle sizes using a particle sizer?

Line 70 take it back to above the image it sits lonely there which can be missed.

Figure 2 can be removed, this is a scientific paper and this image is more suitable to be added in a book chapter or a manual.

The resolution of the figures is not high, please use figures with higher resolution

In figure 3 is there an ideal hardness which is desired in industry for this type of application?

Table 1 please check the caption

Table 1 is missing references unless this data was measured during the study

The SEM images in figure 6 and 7 are very poor, it is strongly recommended to replace them with better ones.

All figures and images are very poor in quality and this can not be accepted. The authors must address this issue

There are way too many figures please reduce the figures to lower number and combine some in bigger figures.

There is minimal discussion on the results. Basically the authors only report the data trend without any critical discussion and reflecting and comparing their work against past studies.

Conclusion is missing!

The paper lacks a lot of elements and can not be accepted in its current form

Author Response

Responses for Reviewers’ Comments

Ms. Ref. No.: applsci-1115923

Title: Comparison of Mechanical Properties and Surface Friction of White Metals Produced by Centrifugal Casting and Laser Cladding on SCM440

Authors: Jae-il Jeong ¹, Jong-Hyoung Kim ², Si-Geun Choi ², Young-Tae Cho ³, Chan-Kyu Kim ³, and Ho Lee ^1,*

We appreciate the constructive comments and suggestions made by the reviewers. We have revised our manuscript extensively according to the suggestions of the reviewers and believe that the paper will now be much more useful and interesting to readers of the Applied sciences. Below we address all the issues raised by the reviewers and describe in detail all the changes which we have made.

Comments of Reviewer #3:

The current paper investigates the applicability of laser cladding treatment for quick processing by studying the optimum laser parameters for laser cladding deposition by adding soft white metallic layer made from steel that is used in cylindrical applications. The evaluation is validated using hardness and other non destructive techniques to analyse the microstructure. The study determines the best conditions which best white layer quality at certain parameters given in the abstract. The study is experimental testing followed by experimental analysis in white metal layer surface treatment related field.

1. The abstract needs to be improved, and must be updated. Lines 12-16 can be shortened or completely removed. Although the authors claim optimum conditions in the abstract but it is not clear why it was optimum? Based on what exactly, this must be clearly mentioned in the abstract as well as other most important findings in the study. In all paper including abstract the authors must avoid using we, our …etc.

Response:

I agree with reviewer suggestion. The abstract was revised according to the reviewer's suggestion that it needs to be updated. (Abstract. 1~7 line, 12~14 line)

2. In the introduction, the literature review on past studies similar to the authors work is very minimal, this needs to be addressed and authors must reflect on past studies in open literature, discuss what has been done and what were the most important findings from their studies and how the authors current study brings new knowledge or interesting research to the field.

Response:

I agree with reviewer suggestion. First, in the "Introduction" section, a description of the surface treatment process and white metal, and the need for laser cladding were added in paragraphs 2-4, and other researchers' previous research on laser cladding was additionally written in paragraph 5.

3. Line 61 please avoid bulk citations for only talking simple facts.

Response:

Reflecting the comment of the reviewer, the bulk quoted phrases were deleted and a new reference was added to "introduction".

4. Line 64 did you measure the particle sizes using a particle sizer?

Response:

Figure 1. Size measurements in SEM images were measured in SEM. However, it is presumed to be of low quality by working with the notation as a ppt file. To correct this, I replaced it with a high-definition photo (Figure 1), and the size information was written in the text. (2.1 Power and Experimental Materials, paragraph 1, line 4).

5. Line 70 take it back to above the image it sits lonely there which can be missed.

Response:

We have revised the content according to the reviewer's opinion. (2.1 power and experimental materials, paragraph 2).

6. Figure 2 can be removed, this is a scientific paper and this image is more suitable to be added in a book chapter or a manual.

Response: We have revised the content according to the reviewer's opinion.

7. The resolution of the figures is not high, please use figures with higher resolution, All figures and images are very poor in quality and this can not be accepted. The authors must address this issue,

Response:

I agree with reviewer suggestion. All figures have been revised to high definition based on reviewer comments.

8. In figure 3 is there an ideal hardness which is desired in industry for this type of application?

Response:

We will respond to reviewers' comments. The part marked cladding in Figure 2 is the white metal cladding layer.(Substrate-SCM440 Layer) In this paper, the closer the hardness value to the conventional centrifugal casting method, the better the result, and it is judged to be a similar result as it shows a value of about 25Hv.

9. Table 1 please check the caption, Table 1 is missing references unless this data was measured during the study

Response:
We have revised the content according to the reviewer's opinion.

Table 1. : 2 Materials and Methods, 2.1 Powder and experimental materials

Table 2. : 2 Materials and Methods, 2.2 Test methods

Table 3. : 3 Results and Discussion, 3.2 SEM microstructure analysis and EDS analysis

10. There are way too many figures please reduce the figures to lower number and combine some in bigger figures.

Response:

We have revised the content according to the reviewer's opinion. (Figure 10, 11)

11. There is minimal discussion on the results. Basically the authors only report the data trend without any critical discussion and reflecting and comparing their work against past studies, Conclusion is missing.

Response:

It has been modified to reflect the reviewer's opinion that there is no conclusion and a discussion should be added.

"3. Results" was modified to "3. Results and discussion", and additional contents of the discussion were written.

- 3. Results and discussion,

- 3.1 Micro Vickers hardness testing in paragraph 1, 7~9 line, 14~16 line / paragraph 4 add

- 3.2 SEM microstructure analysis and EDS analysis, paragraph 4, 7, 8 add

12. In addition, When the content of the main text was reflected, I felt the need to revise the title and proceeded with the title correction as follows.

Response:

Comparison of Mechanical Properties and Surface Friction of White Metals Produced by Centrifugal Casting and Laser Cladding on SCM440

>> Mechanical properties of white metal on SCM440 by laser cladding treatment.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Table 1 and 3 are still missing a reference 

What was the reason for the choice of parameters specified in table 2, are they based on the range of the machine or the recommended by industry or you just want to check a range of parameters and analyse the results to determine best combination?

Line 237 the less powder supply rate replace the word less with lower

The authros still use we/our in the paper please check and remove all and use proper writing style

From the analysis of the EDS results, it was found that the less the powder supply
238-240  "rate or the slower the laser head transfer speed was, the less the amount of powder absorbed was, so that the base material component was less in the composition of the cladding layer." this is not clear plesae explain further and support with references 

I still dont see any critical discussion of the results, the authors only report what they see without relating the resutls to past literature or laser cladding mechanisms 

authors need to mention that SCM440C is an alloy steel in the abstract

Line 208-214 so here you mentioned what you see from this work, how about its relevance with other work carried out on SCM440C alloy steel by other research in the past literature, what did they find, does your findigns agree or disagree with past literature, if no then it should be explained why there is contradiction in results. 

 

Author Response

We appreciate the constructive second comments and advises made by the reviewer s . We have revised our manuscript extensively according to the suggestions of the reviewer s and believe that the paper will now be much more useful and interesting to readers of the Applied sc iences . Below we address all the issues raised by the reviewer s and describe in detail all the changes which we have made.

Comments of Reviewer #3:
1. What was the reason for the choice of parameters specified in table 2, are they based on the range of the machine or the recommended by industry or you just want to check a range of parameters and analyse the results to determine best combination?

Response
We will respond to reviewers' comments. White metal has a lower melting point than general steel. (Additional 2.2 TEST methods, Paragraph 1, Line Therefor this paper need to understand the right amount of laser power in this paper As you can see the below photos in case of 600W, the white metal clad is not completely metal and formed at, temperature at which the substrate does not melt and is soldered in a wider area. In case of 1600W, the HAZ zone shows the largest area and white metal mixed with the base material that in duced the hi gh hardness, which means not suitable that centrifugal method, therefor it is important to find the suitable laser power condition in this paper.* C.K. Kim; S.G. Choi; J.H. Kim; H.J. Jo; Y.C. Jo, S.P. Choi; Y.T. C; Characterization of surface modification by laser cladding using low melting point metal, Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. 2020, 87, 54-59.

2. Line 237 the less powder supply rate replace the word less with lower
Response:
Reflecting the comment of the reviewer, Modification was completed according to the reviewer's suggestion.

3. The authros still use we/our in the paper please check and remove all and use proper writing style
Response:
Reflecting the comment of the reviewer, Modification was completed according to the reviewer's suggestion.

4. From the analysis of the EDS results, it was found that the less the powder supply 238-240 "rate or the slower the laser head transfer speed was, the less the amount of powder absorbed was, so that the base material component was less in the composition of the cladding layer." this is not clear plesae explain further and support with references.
Response:
According to Reviewer comment this sentence already been subscribed in result section. Therefore we would like to deleted the sentence 238-240.

5. I still dont see any critical discussion of the results, the authors only report what they see without relating the results to past literature or laser cladding mechanisms
Response:
On the paper try to subscribe the laser cladding mechanisms or explanation based on experiment results to understand friendly in terms of readers.
The melting state of white metal varies depending on the amount of laser energy in the laser cladding process. If the amount of laser energy is low, the white metal is bonded in a state where it does not completely melt, and if the amount of rare energy is high, the base material is affected and a highhardness
layer is formed. If the laser power is high, Fe component in the base meter was mixed into the white metal that induced high hardness in the study.
(3.2 SEM microstructure analysis and EDS analysis, Paragraph 8 add)

6. authors need to mention that SCM440 alloy steel C is an alloy steel in the abstract
Response:
Reflecting the comment of the reviewer, Modification was completed according to the reviewer's suggestion.

7. Line 208-214 so here you mentioned what you see from this work, how about its relevance with other work carried out on SCM440 alloy steel C alloy steel by other research in the past literature, what did they find, does your findigns agree or disagree with past literature, if no then it should be explained why there is contradiction in results.
Response:
Preview paper. “ * C.K. Kim; S.G. Choi; J.H. Kim; H.J. Jo; Y.C. Jo, S.P. Choi; Y.T. C; Characterization of surface modi fi cation by laser cladding using low melting point metal, Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. 2020, 87, 54 59.
Co author studied on the characterization of su r face modification by laser cladding and published below journal. It sho ws the similar. Tend ency compared to our result, However this published paper used S45C and cladded laboratory laser cladding system. Therefore this paper is forward on the good condition to
form a white metal layer on SCM440 alloy steel alloy steel.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

I am unable to track changes made in the revised version. please highlight all changes in yellow

Table 1 still missing a reference!

Please consider reviewing the abstract and highlight the novelty, major findings and conclusions.

What is the research gap did you find from the previous researchers in your field? Mention it properly. It will improve the strength of the article.

The results are merely described and is limited to comparing the experimental observation. The authors are encouraged to include a discussion section and critically discuss the observations from this investigation with existing literature. I really dont see any critical discussion in the manuscript or comparing your work with previous studies and whether they agree or disagree with them

Author Response

Responses for Reviewers’ Comments

Ms. Ref. No.: applsci-1115923

Title: Mechanical properties of white metal on SCM440 alloy steel by laser cladding treatment

Authors: Jae-il Jeong ¹, Jong-Hyoung Kim ², Si-Geun Choi ², Young-Tae Cho ³, Chan-Kyu Kim ³, and Ho Lee ^1,*

We appreciate the constructive third comments and advises made by the reviewers. We have revised our manuscript extensively according to the suggestions of the reviewers and believe that the paper will now be much more useful and interesting to readers of the Applied sciences. Below we address all the issues raised by the reviewers and describe in detail all the changes which we have made.

Comments of Reviewer #3:

1. I am unable to track changes made in the revised version. please highlight all changes in yellow.

Response:

Thanks for the comments. This paper has revised high all changes in yellow as Reviewer comment.

2. Table 1 still missing a reference!, Table 1 and 3 are still missing a reference 

Response:

We will respond to reviewers' comments. I would like to say, Table 1 and 3 shown in this paper results that are measured ourselves by SEM and EDS equipment.

3. Please consider reviewing the abstract and highlight the novelty, major findings and conclusions.

Response:

I agree with reviewer comment. this paper has revised according to the reviewer comment. (Abstract. 15-17 line add)

4. What is the research gap did you find from the previous researchers in your field? Mention it properly. It will improve the strength of the article.

Response:

Thanks for the comments. I'm sorry for the fact that it was difficult to find because I didn't emphasize the revised part.

In the "Introduction" section, I have written the contents of previous research related to laser cladding. Other researchers have conducted laser cladding studies on major materials for mid-term turbine blades, engine blocks, and steering wheel materials et.

Unlike previous studies, this paper has proved that it can be used as an alternative to the centrifugal casting process by analyzing the mechanical properties by laminating white metal on the tilting pad bearing material (scm 440 alloy steel) through a laser cladding process.

5. The results are merely described and is limited to comparing the experimental observation. The authors are encouraged to include a discussion section and critically discuss the observations from this investigation with existing literature. I really dont see any critical discussion in the manuscript or comparing your work with previous studies and whether they agree or disagree with them.

Response:

Previews study was mainly focused on aspect ratio according to laser power and power flow rate, which is shown in below graph.

▶ Preview paper.

And previews paper was cladded on S45C material that is melt different from our paper, The hardness results also showed different tendency due to different base material. Our paper shows about 2times lower hardness results compared to previews study, Therefore it can be said that our laser cladding system is suitable to apply in bearing manufacturing company. In terms of protecting shaft protecting shaft.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 3 Report

All questions answered