Process Research on the Microgroove Depth Uniformity of Bursting Discs Using Femtosecond Lasers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents an experimental investigation on femtosecond laser processing to create uniform microgrooves on bursting discs. The manuscript reads well and given the process optimization involving scanning strategies, laser fluence, overlap, this is a reasonably good contribution to the research in this field. I have some comments that authors may consider including in the manuscript to improve the content.

1. Is there any particular reason why authors stick to a constant width of grooves (70 um)? How is this number important from the application perspective? Or it is solely based on the limitation on beam spot size? Please clarify this.
2. Considering the measurement of uniformity, authors should clearly mention the aspects such as profilometer/microscope resolution, the number of measurements about both repeatability and reproducibility of the process.
3. Femtosecond laser processing side effects should be explained. For example, femtosecond laser processing also results in laser-induced periodic surface structures (LIPSS) on top of the microscale grooves. See https://doi.org/10.1007/s10404-021-02470-7. and https://doi.org/10.1002/admi.201600641. Here the grooves are fully covered by nano-scale LIPSS structures. Authors should discuss such phenomena.
4. Furthermore, are the microgroove walls straight or tapered from the processing? If tapered, this laser processing should be compared with conventional machining where straight walls can be achieved. And how does the taper/straightness of the groove wall affect the bursting pressure?
5. When the laser beam reaches the end of the groove for the next scanning path, it has to spend more time there due to the constant acceleration. This results in excess material removal near the edges, thus the depth. How is this effect compensated?
6. It is apparent that increasing overlap affects the bottom wall’s morphology. The authors included the surface oxidation levels. But how the roughness is changed on the bottom wall with the overlap?
7. The bursting test details are not explained in the manuscript. The authors should clearly explain how the tests were conducted. Authors say that laser processed microgrooves improve the stability of the bursting pressure when compared to the conventionally processed grooves. However, what is the deviation from the conventionally processed grooves? Please include these details.
8. Figures captions should be improved. They should clearly explain the parameters. Please consider this.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is well written and I have no comments.  

Author Response

Thank you very much for your affirmation and support

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The presented work is of great practical importance for the understanding process of laser ablation for improving the depth uniformity of microgrooves in bursting discs. The work was done at a high level. However, it is not at all clear why the authors made the decision to submit it to the journal Coatings. The work does not correspond to the subject of the journal. Although the work may be published, editors are encouraged to review it for compliance with the scientific field of the journal.
Although this work is probably publishable, there exist a number of issues to be addressed prior to publication.

 

Specific Comments
1. Introduction, analysis of the state of the problem does not meet the requirements of the scientific and technical field of the journal. At the same time, the argumentation of the scientific problem and the method of its solution is fully argued.
2. Line 202, please explain the choice of overlapping rate 80%.
3. The work does not specify clear requirements for the manufactured product. It is not established whether it was possible to obtain a suitable product or not. Please correct.
4. Justify the choice of manufacturing the product by laser ablation, and not by EDM or plasma cutting.
5. With the general required level of the article and its possibility for publication, it is not at all clear why this article is submitted to Coatings. The work does not correspond to the topic.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf