Influence of Heat Treatment on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Laser Cladding Coatings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Needs work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this work, the authors have prepared Fe314 clad layers on EA4T steel substrates and performed heat treatment for microstructure and mechanical property modification. They have performed XRD and SEM for microstructure analysis. For mechanical property analysis, they performed hardness and impact testing. The article is nicely written; however, a deeper analysis is required before it can be published. I recommend a major revision with the following comments.

1.       The zoom-in image of Figure 2d shows a significant porosity present in the clad layer. What is the typical size distribution of those pores? What is the impact of those pores on the overall mechanical properties of the clad layer? A quantitative discussion might be helpful.

2.       How many samples were tested for impact toughness, as shown in Figure 5? Is there a variation in impact energy between the three conditions?

3.       The authors have shown qualitative analysis of precipitates to XRD analysis; however, a quantitative analysis of the size and shape of precipitates will support the XRD analysis. What is the size and shape of the M7C3 carbide precipitates? A TEM analysis will be beneficial for the readers.

 

4.       What is the rationale behind choosing Fe314 as clad material? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good revision work.

Some points are not addressed properly.

Comment 13: the authors response should be added to the manuscript.

Comment 16: Figure 2 caption is still not clear. Make it simpler. 

Comment 19: It is better to remove the "x" sign and use "for" instead in the whole manuscript.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Better now.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been revised reasonably. The reviewer has one edit suggestion. An error bar should be provided in Figure 6 for the impact energy for each condition.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf