Study on Mechanical Properties of Fe-Ni-Based TiC Plasma Cladding Layer Modified by Composite Iron Powder
, Peizhuang Wang 1, Xiantao Li 1, Zenglei Wu 2, Xuexian Li 2 and Weichao Fan 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents a study on the mechanical properties of Fe-Ni based TiC plasma cladding layer modified by composite iron powder. The topic is of importance and the manuscript is well-structured. I suggest publication after revising the manuscript in accordance with the comments given below.
· Please check the text for typos and grammar.
· Please clearly give the novelty in this work.
· Fig.1: please increase the font size for readability.
· How did the authors determine the testing parameters such as in the wear tests?
· Better to insert a scale bar in the microstructure images for size issues.
· Table 6, 7: better to give the units.
· Is there a relationship btw friction coefficient and wear rate?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor check is needed for language.
Author Response
All the replies are in the word document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAn interesting article with a practical result is presented. The article presents experimental results on obtaining a modified layer by the plasma cladding process, studying its structure, phase analysis, mechanical and tribological properties. The article contains new scientific results that will be of interest to the reader. In order to improve the understanding and quality of the article, I draw attention to the following comments:
1. The phrase on Line 22-23 is not clear: And the microstructure gradually refined from the fusion zone to the top of the cladding layer.
2. In the section Line 90-118, I recommend reflecting the following works: DOI: 10.3103/S1068375511040107, DOI: 10.1134/S2075113319030201.
3. Line 137, 140: the designation of the size of the powders "mesh" is not clear, the particle size is usually given in “μm”.
4. In Fig. 1 and 2, the text size should be increased, as it is not readable in the current form.
5. In Fig. 3, indicate where the coating is and where the substrate is.
6. Line 228-231: in Fig. 3, it is difficult to talk about TiC grains based on the metallographic analysis data. A similar remark about porosity. In the figures provided, it is not clear where the porosity is and where the TiC grains are. It is also difficult to tell which particle is which from Fig. 4. TiC are rounded particles, but they are practically invisible in Fig. 4. It is not clear what the light areas are. To identify the obtained microstructure, the authors need to present the SEM and EDA results, and also relate the results to Fig. 6. In the current form, it is not clear what relates to what.
7. The discussion on Line 271-273 does not say what microstructure improvement means. More detailed explanations are needed.
8. In Fig. 7, the designation “Mpa” is incorrectly indicated.
9. Since the authors talk about different porosity in the obtained samples, it affects the mechanical characteristics, which is not mentioned in the article.
10. Scale markers are not visible on any microstructure, it is necessary to add.
11. Fig. 10 is of poor quality. This figure does not show what the authors indicated.
Author Response
All the replies are in the word document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper entitled ‘Study on mechanical properties of Fe-Ni based TiC plasma cladding layer modified by composite iron powder’ is a scientific paper dealing with an important issue. However, I noticed several shortcomings in the paper:
1. the Introduction section lacks a clear presentation of the aim of the studies. Please also clearly state the novelty of the topic discussed.
2. There are some formal errors, such as unnecessary bolding of the text, e.g. on lines 267, 451 or lack of numbering of equations, e.g. on line 308, unnecessary blank lines. It is recommended that the entire paper be carefully checked for these.
3 There is an incorrect scoring format in section 3.3.2.
4. Figure 9b is not very legible and should be corrected.
5. Bad quality of graphics in figure 11, also needs to be improved.
6. The paper lacks a discussion where the authors compare their results with those of other researchers from similar studies conducted.
Author Response
All the replies are in the word document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper entitled “Study on mechanical properties of Fe-Ni based TiC plasma cladding layer modified by composite iron powder”. Below you will find a few remarks regarding your work.
Introduction
The aim of the study should be clearly specified in the last paragraph of the introduction.
Experimental process
Table 1 – was the chemical composition analyzed by the Authors? If yes please provide information on the method used for analysis, the amount of samples tested and the accuracy of the measurements. If the chemical composition was provided by the manufacturer please state that in the text and provide information on the accuracy (manufacturers usually provide ± value)
Lines 137 – 140 – same as above, was the hardness and the size measured by the Authors or was it provided by the manufacturer? The Authors should clearly state that in the text.
Line 178 – corroded or etched?
What was the acceleration voltage during SEM observations?
Results and analysis
Table 4 lacks discussion – why provide it if the Authors do not analyze it? If it is theoretical the Authors should provide information on how was it calculated/determined and why the differences occur in some elements and not in other.
Fig. 3, 4, 10 - Please provide a visible scale bar for the figure. If the provided photographs are at the same scale then one scale bar is enough.
The difference between a1 and a2, etc. at fig. 3 and 10 is not clear. Are these 2 various samples of S0, etc? for fig. 4 it was clearly explained, it should be the same here.
Table 5 – what is the unit? At. % or wt. %?
Fig. 11 – the numbers at the color scale bar are not visible. Please provide images of higher quality of enhanced font size. It would be best if the maximum value was the same at all 5 pictures, for easier analysis and comparison.
When the aim of the study will be clearly provided it would be good to state if it was obtained or not at the end of the analysis section.
Conclusion
2) the % or value difference/increase in hardness/shear strength of the best tested samples should be provided in the conclusion.
3) same as above.
References
There are 41 references and only 13 are 10 years old or older. I do not see any self-citation. In my opinion the reference section was prepared thoroughly and do not need improvement.
Author Response
All the replies are in the word document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRevised version is acceptable.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your careful review again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors made all the edits and answered all the questions, everything is fine.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your careful review again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for the provided revision and all of the answers to my questions and remarks. I am mostly satisfied with this version, however, the scale bars which were added to the figures are barely visible. Why did you use such small font size? I would suggest increasing it. Other than that the paper meets the Journal standards in my opinion.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable advice. The pictures with scale in the manuscript are all directly exported by testing equipment. In order to ensure the authenticity of the pictures, we have no way to modify the font size such as scale. However, during the process of the first revision, we supplemented this issue in the text of the manuscript. We will pay more attention to this problem in future tests in order to find a better solution. Finally, thank you again for your valuable advice.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
