The Effect of Laser-Cladded Co6, T400, and Ni-Based 30WC Coatings on the Wear Resistance of H13 Steel
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have revised the points I mentioned in the previous version of the article. The article can be published in its current form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for reviewing the manuscript twice and providing valuable review comments for my revision reference, your recognition of the manuscript is my greatest motivation to move forward, thank you for your recognition.
Finally, I wish you good work and happy life!
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article "Effect of laser clad Co6, T400 and Ni coatings based on 30WC on the wear resistance of H13 steel" is submitted for the second time to the Coatings magazine. In the previous manuscript, I was one of the reviewers in an article that I did not recommend for publication. I offered the authors several options for improvements. They also incorporated some improvements in the submitted article. Even so, I think that as far as the professional part of the work from chapter 3 is concerned, the processing of the article is at an insufficient level.
1. I mainly criticize the very poor graphic processing of the results.
2. The results of the type of oxidative wear must also be confirmed by EDX analysis
3. To supplement the overall discussion of all found results, where the overall connection is demonstrated.
4. Unnecessary duplication of measured results (Fig. 6 and Fig. 9), the necessity of inserting a description into the images.
From an overall point of view, the article has undergone a relatively good modification since the previous version, but even so, it still does not offer a high-quality processing of the results for the Coatings magazine category. For this reason, I require a significant improvement of the article in the experimental part from chapter 3.
1. I mainly criticize the very poor graphic processing of the results.
2. The results of the type of oxidative wear must also be confirmed by EDX analysis
3. To supplement the overall discussion of all found results, where the overall connection is demonstrated.
4. Unnecessary duplication of measured results (Fig. 6 and Fig. 9), the necessity of inserting a description into the images.
From an overall point of view, the article has undergone a relatively good modification since the previous version, but even so, it still does not offer a high-quality processing of the results for the Coatings magazine category.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your valuable review comments that helped me to improve the quality of the manuscript. Based on your review comments, I would like to provide the following detailed response:
Review comment 1: The image has been reprocessed.
Review comment 2: Oxidative wear is mainly a judgment based on previous literature and combined with experimental results, and the corresponding results will be added subsequently.
Review comment 3: The sequential logic of the manuscript has been adjusted.
Review comment 4: Figures 6 and 9 have different representations, so different pictures are used.
Finally, I would like to thank you for your valuable review comments, which will help me to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript, and I would like to express my sincere thanks to you and wish you a successful job and a happy life!
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1-How do authors find the need for coating with Co6, T400, and Ni-based 30WC on H13 steel, which is already high alloy steel with having good properties and utilized for tool making and dies?
2- Initially adhesive wear was exhibited for H13, then adhesive wear and abrasive wear for coating, how come the work is concluded on oxidative wear as highlighted in the abstract?
3- Increase the keywords.
4-Break the third paragraph of the introduction into two or three paragraphs. Moreover, also improves the last paragraph of the introduction which usually highlights the author's work and novelty.
5- The experimental materials and method section is quite weak, how authors have executed the process of laser cladding is missing in the section, as this is a major objective of this work.
6- The section 3 heading must be Results and Discussion, however, further subheadings can be SEM and XRD Analysis of Laser-Cladded Coating Samples.
7- Kindly mark Figures with (a), (b), (c), for all the Figures and then write captions. Moreover, Fig. 2 is so small that even it's very hard to read the magnification.
8- If is not identifiable in Fig. 2, which one is Co6, T400, and Ni-based 30WC coated and in the subsequent explanation?
9- Why is there a center portion uncoated in the third picture of Fig. 3.
10- Fig. 3 needs to be pasted correctly, with a larger dimension to make is readable, currently it is impossible to read.
11- Similar is the case with Fig. 5. unacceptable.
12- At line 241, Fig. 8(c) belongs to the hardness section, from where two crack appears in this Fig.
13- How authors have plotted Fig. 6? This Fig is impressive but the explanation is very poor.
14- In Fig. 7, the two graphs should be placed side by side.
15- The microhardness section is totally not understandable, and needs to be corrected.
16- Authors need to highlight the characteristics and features in Fig. 9 that are provided and written under Section 4.3.
17- The paper is presented in a very poor form of illustration and formatting. Extensive revision is required in terms of placing the Figures and their explanation along with proper marking.
18- Authors should take one month to revise the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
minor changes
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your valuable review comments that helped me to improve the quality of the manuscript. Based on your review comments, I would like to provide the following detailed response:
Review comment 1: for the preparation of laser cladding coating on the surface of H13 steel, the reason has been explained in the introduction part of paragraphs 1 and 2, mainly to enhance the H13 steel surface resistance to high-temperature friction and abrasion performance, for the aluminum mold manufacturing industry, high-temperature molten aluminum liquid has a strong corrosive properties, and in the actual production of high-temperature molten aluminum liquid can not be avoided on the surface of the H13 steel caused by the Friction scrubbing effect on the surface of H13 steel can not be avoided in the actual production. Therefore, according to the above reasons, the laser cladding coating is prepared on the surface of H13 steel to further enhance the anti-temperature friction and abrasion resistance of H13 steel surface and prolong the service life of the mold.
Review comment 2: According to reading the previous literature, the basis for judging oxidative wear is given in the paper, and combined with the experimental results of this paper, one of the types of wear of the style contains oxidative wear. The formulation in the manuscript has been changed.
Review comment 3: Keywords have been added based on the content of the manuscript, including: Co6, T400, nickel-based 30WC, coefficient of friction.
Review comment 4: The third paragraph of the introduction focuses on the current state of research in addressing the enhancement of surface wear resistance of H13 steels, and the advantages of laser cladding technology over conventional heat treatment methods are also emphasized in the last paragraph of the introduction.
Review comment 5: A before and after description of the experimental procedure has been added to the Experimental Materials and Methods section.
Review comment 6: The main and subheadings of the manuscript have been revised and adjusted. The third chapter section focuses on [Results and Discussion] and the subtitle contains [SEM and XRD analysis, friction coefficient analysis, wear amount analysis and friction wear type analysis].
Review comments 7 and 8: In response to these two review comments, a unified rectification was made, including the enlargement of pictures and the naming of pictures were reorganized.
Review comment 9: The three images in Figure 3 represent the XRD patterns of three fused coatings analyzed for the entire coating layer. Are you referring to the 3rd image in Figure 2? The area photographed in the 3rd image of Fig. 2 is mainly the WC particles inside the coating, and around the particles is the fused coating. So the fillet contains the hard WC particles and the surrounding coating.
Review comment 10 and 11: All images, including Figure 3, are enlarged.
Review comment 12: Cracks are surface cracks produced during the laser cladding process.
Review comment 13: Figure 6 was taken mainly using a laboratory white light interferometer, mainly to measure the average wear area and wear volume of the fretting wear region and to compare and analyze the wear resistance of the three fusion coatings and the H13 steel.
Review comment 14: The arrangement of the images has been changed to a side-by-side arrangement.
Review comment 15: The formulation has been replaced to focus on the collection of hardness test points in the cross-section of the coating.
Review comment 16: Changes have been made to the description of Figure 9.
Review comment 17: Changes have been made to the pictures and diagrams.
Review comment 18: The revision of the manuscript will be based on your valuable review comments in detail.
Finally, I would like to thank you for your valuable review comments, which will help me to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript, and I would like to express my sincere thanks to you and wish you a successful job and a happy life!
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI still propose to correct the article according to the following points. If the authors do not adjust all these comments to the required level, it is not possible to recommend the article for publication (Since the article has already passed the comments of several reviewers).
1. Correct literary references in the text, they are written in square brackets and not as a superscript
2. Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 should be spread over the entire width of the page
3. Fig. 1 insert images next to each other and not below each other. Also put scales in pictures.
4. Fig. 2 insert images side by side and insert arrows with labels (what is shown on the given microstructures).
5. Fig. 5 and 6 remove Chinese characters with os translate into English language.
6. Fig. 7 I carefully ask to keep only one type of view
7. Fig. insert error bars in the columns
8. Fig. 9 mark pictures a and b in pictures and also no previous adjustments were made, mark in the pictures with arrows the types of wear as well as other wear mechanisms that are described in the text.
9. Check the alignment of the text on both sides.
The article is still insufficiently processed in terms of graphics and bad formatting, which gives a bad first impression to the reader. Authors have the last chance to proofread all my comments.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
I have read your review comments in detail and have made the following revisions for your review:
Review comment 1: The references have been written in square brackets and superscripts have been removed.
Review comment 2: Tables 1 to 5 have been distributed across the width of the page.
Review comment 3: The arrangement of the pictures in Figure 1 has been changed to insert the pictures next to each other, and the corresponding dimensions of the fused areas have been marked in the pictures.
Review comment 4: The arrangement of the images in Figure 2 has been changed to insert the images next to each other, and the corresponding microscopic displays have been labeled in the images.
Review comment 5: The Chinese expressions of the X and Y axes in the pictures in Figures 5 and 6 have been changed to English expressions.Review comment 6: The 2D topography in Figure 7 has been removed and the 3D topography has been retained. A 2 x 2 arrangement has been chosen to ensure the clarity of the images.
Review comment 7: Due to my limited comprehension, I didn't get the deep meaning of your comment, I hope you can clarify it.
Review comment 8: The type of abrasive wear has been labeled with arrows in the images, and adjacent images have also been labeled to distinguish them. The neighboring images are all shots of the same abrasion area at different magnifications.
Review comment 9: The alignment of the textual content of the manuscript has been adjusted.
Thank you for your continued valuable comments on the manuscript, which have helped me to continually improve the quality of the manuscript, and once again, I express my sincere thanks and endless gratitude to you. On the occasion of the New Year, I wish you all the best in your work in the new year!
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1-For review point 1, integrate the provided purpose at the introduction.
2- For review point 2, kindly explain what oxidative coating is. Also, provide one or two references, moreover, highlight the regions of oxidative wear in your SEM images.
3- For review point 4, break the third paragraph into two or three graphs, as it is already very lengthy. Still need improvement in the last paragraph of the introduction.
4- Still the placement of Figures is quite poor, this must be improved if the authors want further processing. write (a), (b), (c) at the top of Figures; not in the captions.
5- Review point 9, yes Fig. 2c. Why there is a center portion uncoated or the fillet is created?
6- Write the legends of x and y axis in English of Fig. 5 and Fig. 6.
7- The placement of Fig. 6 is quite poor, place the Figure side by side not upside down.
8- Review point 13, again this Figure 7 is impressive but needs proper explanation against all the three coatings comparison with the H13. Also, provide the standard and details of the wear testing exception in Section 2 of Materials and Methodology.
9- Section 3.2.2 is related to micro hardness analysis as depicted with the Fig. 6 but the Heading is wear volume analysis. kindly justify.
10- Review Point 16, no changes are observed, in terms of providing the types of wear are marked and highlighted in Fig. 9a, 9b, 9c, and 9d.
11- Still the manuscript is in the poor form of illustration of Figures, and formatting, which is a very basic ingredient. Authors need to take time and correct all the things carefully.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
minor changes
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
I have read your review comments in detail and have made the following revisions for your review:
Review comment 1: Parts of the introduction section have been consolidated and rewritten.
Review comment 2: The basis for determining oxidized wear has been described in the text and has been marked in the figure.
Review comment 3: The third paragraph of the original manuscript mainly introduces the current research status, which contains 28 references, and it is difficult to describe the content clearly if the expression of 28 references is replaced by two or three pictures. I hope you understand this point. It describes the current state of research, not the specific content of my research. For the last paragraph has been rewritten.
Review comment 4: The a and b markers have been placed on top of the image.
Review comment 5: The circles in the picture are unmelted hard WC particles in the alloy metal powder, because WC particles have a high melting point and laser cladding is characterized by rapid cooling and heating, so that before the WC particles are melted, the corresponding area has already cooled down below the melting point of the WC particles.
Review comment 6: The examples of the axes in Figures 5 and 6 have been changed to English.
Review comment 7: The arrangement of Figure 6 has been changed to a side-by-side arrangement.
Review comment 8: Figure 7 has been removed from the 2D topography and the 3D topography has been retained. The pictures were taken by the instrument, but the measured data are the important content needed for the manuscript. The wear area and wear volume of the four materials were measured by the laboratory instrument, and the specific data have been listed in the manuscript. The wear resistance of the four materials is illustrated by specific abrasion wear data. Meanwhile, the criteria for friction wear were determined by reading previous dissertations and combining them with the specific conditions in the laboratory.For example, what kind of friction sub was used by previous generations and why? What was the experimental temperature? Is the friction mode dry friction or oil lubricated friction? According to their research parameters, we communicate with the laboratory in conjunction with the actual situation, in determining our research parameters.
Review comment 9: The title has been changed to "Analysis of material hardness and the amount of wear".
Review comment 10: The type of fretting wear has been labeled in the figure.
Review comment 11: Corresponding errors have been corrected.
Thank you for your continued valuable comments on the manuscript, which have helped me to continually improve the quality of the manuscript, and once again, I express my sincere thanks and endless gratitude to you. On the occasion of the New Year, I wish you all the best in your work in the new year!
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks to the authors for incorporating my comments. Even so, I recommend the authors to increase the graphic processing of the results in the future, as well as the results must be supported by better quality results.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1- The advantages of laser clad technology compared to other methods (conventional treatments) and the rationale for its use in this study should be explained. You can benefit from the article below. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2022.128830
2- The reasons for choosing Co6, T400, and Ni-based 30WC and their high temperature effects should be detailed.
For Co6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2023.06.012,
For T400 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2018.02.013
And for Ni-based 30WC, it is recommended to review the articles https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.556-562.189.
3- Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 can be given as a single table.
4- In Figure 1, the measurement scale should be given.
5- The SiN abrasive ball given in Table 8 may not be sized correctly. Could it be Si3N4?
6- In Figure 2, a, b and c should be given with a title. It can be specified as a, b, c on SEM views.
7- The XRD data in Figure 3 is not visible at all. Please provide it visibly. Also, support the XRD data from the literature. For example, the reference I suggested for upper Co6 includes the same phases you detected.
8- While hardness is mentioned in many parts of the article, it is a major deficiency that the hardness values of the coatings are not given. As a matter of fact, wear resistance in these coatings is largely related to hardness. Hardness values of the coatings and, if possible, modulus of elasticity values should be given.
9- Give the friction coefficient data as a single graph. Therefore figure 5 is sufficient. Remove Figure 4 from the text.
10- Detail the wear mechanisms in Section 4.3. Oxidative wear is clearly seen in SEM images. Add these considerations to the article. Also, show the wear types on the Sem pictures. Browse the articles published in Coating magazine. The following article is just one of them https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings13071272
11- The Conclusion section is written quite long. It is recommended that the results of the article be written in concise and highlighted form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your honest review comments. In response to your height comment, I make the following reply:
(1) In response to review comments 1-2, I have reviewed the relevant articles and cited them.
(2) For review comment 3, the tables have been merged.
(3) In response to review comment 4, I have given the fused dimensions.
(4) In response to review comment 5, SiN has been changed to Si3N4.
(5) In response to review comment 6, the image captions have been given.
(6) In response to review comment 7, the clear XRD image has been replaced.
(7) In response to review comment 8, microhardness test graphs of three fusion-coated coatings have been included.
(8) In response to review comment 9, Figure 4 has been deleted and Figure 5 has been retained.
(9) In response to review comment 10, oxidative wear has been taken into account.
(10) In response to review comment 11, the description of the conclusion has been changed.
Thank you again for your honest review comments. We wish you a happy life and good luck in your work.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors presented a report for increasing the wear resistance of H13 steel. They applied three types of coating to the steel. After thorough investigation of the article I am not convinced with the way the article is presented. The experimental part is poorly designed with no scientific approach. I can see overcrowded tables with very poor description. In results and discussions the figures are poorly presented with no connection to relevant literature to validate the proposed research. In addition, the XRD images needs proper assignments of the peaks with ICDD card numbers. I am also curious about the reason of the coatings, it is not being supported with relevant literature in introduction part.
I am not in a position to recommend acceptance of the article.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish language seems fine with me
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your honest review comments. I would like to respond to your review comments as follows:
According to your review comments, the content of the article has been revised, and the XRD patterns have been redrawn and labeled.
Thank you again for your honest review comments. We wish you a happy life and good luck in your work.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe presented article has an interesting topic. It could also bring very interesting results for the reader. I have the following comments on the submitted article:
Expert comments:
1. In the abstract, it is necessary to write with which exact method the tribological tests were measured and also which measurement parameters were set. It is also necessary to mention specific numerical results in the abstract, not just what is better and what is worse.
2. At the end of the introduction, it is necessary to state the main goal of the article as well as methods that contribute to the study itself.
3. Counterface Ball Material was SiN not by chance Si3N4?
4. I do not understand what is shown in Fig. 2c I mean the circular object in the middle of the picture?
5. What was the speed of movement in the friction process?
6. The description of individual pictures 4a,b,c,d as well as the pictures themselves are useless since they are later compared in one graph.
7. Lines 224 - 238 are absolutely useless. This is only theoretical, generally known knowledge that does not belong here.
8. Fig. 8c for what reason did two cracks appear in the friction track?? It is not mentioned in the text at all.
9. The conclusion is processed only theoretically:
point 1: numerical comparisons of the results are also needed
point 2: unnecessary repetition of parameters + it would be appropriate to measure e.g. also the hardness of the coatings for a better understanding of the mechanical results of the coatings.
point 3: all these statements need to be added to images 8. Also, it is not clearly visible which is the oxidative wear, since the black areas are difficult to detect in the SEM images. I would also zoom in more in these pictures.
Formal comments:
1. Incorrectly written affiliation, e.g. superscripts 1 and 2, non-observance of spaces, missing state and province.
2. References in the text are written incorrectly, I recommend authors to look at the template and strictly follow it.
3. Do not use cross-references in Word, but write references directly in square brackets, e.g. [1].
4. All Tables (1-8) must be aligned with the text, or aligned to the full width of the page.
5. Fig. 1 - Labeling of individual images together with their description is missing.
6. Fig. 2 - Insert images next to each other, not below each other.
7. Fig. 3, 4, 5 - The images are illegible and of unsatisfactory quality, as well as the axes, markings, and data.
8. Improve the quality of the images and save them to the page conveniently.
9. Fig. 6 - Just use 3D images, delete 2D images.
10. Fig. 7 - Delete image (a) Bar chart of wear area, just keep wear volume.
11. Fig. 8 - detailed descriptions of the structure are missing in the pictures. Either keep the image zoomed in or out. Although you describe the structure in the text, it is not clear from the images which parts are involved.
12. Divide the Results and Discussion chapter into separate chapters. In the Discussion chapter, your findings need to be detailed and explained.
13. There are few references (28) and they are not written according to valid guidelines.
14. At the end of the article, the following are missing: Author Contributions, Funding, Institutional Review Board Statement, Informed Consent Statement, Data Availability Statement, Acknowledgments and Conflicts of Interest (the authors uploaded as a separate document).
In terms of formality, the article is at a low level.
Given that the magazine "Coatings" offers its readers quality articles and is also registered in very important databases, I do not recommend approving the article for publication:
Justification: The article is processed at a very poor level, both professionally and formally. The article lacks a more scientific treatment of the issue, which concerns several areas. The coatings are poorly described, the graphic results are illegible and do not offer all the necessary information or are duplicated. It is also necessary to add e.g. mechanical values of the resulting coatings or supplementing the wear rate of the pressure balls. It is also necessary to explain the wear and tear of the printed material. It would also be possible to carry out an EDS analysis of the formed grooves to confirm oxidative wear.
For these reasons, I recommend sending the article to a less valuable journal (but it is still necessary to correct the text according to my comments).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your honest review comments. Based on your review comments, I would like to respond as follows.
(1) Expert comments 1,I have added wear data in the abstract.
(2) Expert comments 2, I have stated the main objective and methodology of this paper at the end of the introduction.
(3)Expert comments 3,SiN has been changed to Si3N4.
(4)Expert comments 4,It has been stated that the circles in the middle of the picture are hard WC particles.
(5)Expert comments 5, The corresponding parameters have been added to the table of high-temperature friction parameters.
(6)Expert comments 6, the friction coefficient curves have been merged.
(7)Expert comments 7,Do you think that the theoretical common sense can be used as a basis for judgment?
(8)Expert comments 8,The causes of cracks have been explained.
(9)Expert comments 9,The conclusion has been reorganized.
(10) Formal comments 1, has reorganized the writing of affiliation.
(11) Formal comments 2 and 13, for references, were submitted to the editor for review before submission.
(12) Formal comments 3, the bibliography has been renumbered.
(13) Formal comments 4, the alignment of the tables has been organized.
(14)Formal comments 5-11, the images drawn by origin have been transferred and replaced in high resolution. For the images you think should be deleted, can they be used as a reference for further comparison of the data?
(15) Formal comments12, the conclusion section has been reorganized.
(16)Formal comment14, has been submitted in a separate attachment.
Thank you again for your valuable review comments in your busy schedule, and I wish you a happy life and a successful work.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1- The first paragraph of the introduction section needs reference.
2- The last paragraph of the introduction section should mention the purpose and innovation of the article.
3- Tables 2-4 and 5-7 should be merged together.
4- What was the reason for choosing laser parameters for each of the powders?
5- Line 116- Why should the crystal structure be determined? How did you determine?
6- The caption of Figure 2B is incorrect.
7- Line 132- It is not correct to use the term crystal structure.
8- 135- Epitaxial growth is not seen in the images.
In general, the manuscript has many flaws. Analysis is not enough. No innovation can be seen in the manuscript. There is no metallurgical reason for superior wear behavior and comparing coatings. While respecting and thanking the authors, I consider this manuscript to lack strong scientific content for publication and do not recommend it for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your honest review comments. Based on your review comments, I would like to respond as follows.
(1) In review comment 1, do you mean adding references in the background part of the first paragraph?
(2) Review comment 2, a part of the description has been added at the end.
(3) Review comment 3, Tables 2-4 have been merged, but for Tables 5-7, the elemental compositions of each powder are different and cannot be harmonized after merging.
(4) Review comment 4, different parameters are used for different powders, mainly for the surface molding quality, and different powders lead to different parameters.
(5) Review comment 5, the type of grain was determined to illustrate the strengthening mechanism of the coating, and as for the determination of the type, it was mainly through reading the literature.
(6) Review comment 6, the name has been changed.
(7) Review comment 7, Do you think it is accurate to use grain type?
(8) Review comment 8, the description has been changed.
Thank you again for your valuable review comments in your busy schedule, and I wish you a happy life and good work.
