Next Article in Journal
Additively Manufactured Porous Ti6Al4V for Bone Implants: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Microstructure Evolution and Properties of β-TCP/Mg-Zn-Ca Biocomposite Processed by Hot Extrusion Combined with Multi-Pass ECAP
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Surface Damage and Microstructure Evolution of Yttria Particle-Reinforced Tungsten Plate during Transient Laser Thermal Shock

by Daya Ren 1, Ya Xi 1, Jie Yan 2, Xiang Zan 1,3,*, Laima Luo 1,3 and Yucheng Wu 1,3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Submission received: 22 February 2022 / Revised: 14 April 2022 / Accepted: 14 April 2022 / Published: 16 April 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors presented an article « Surface damage and microstructure evolution of yttria particle reinforced tungsten plate during transient laser thermal shock».

  • Abstract

Please provide the main quantitative and qualitative research core findings.

  • In the last paragraph of the introduction section

What is the scientific novelty of the paper? What is the practical value? What makes this approach different from other researchers?

  • Material and Methods

Micron (µ) spelling in the text should be corrected.

Sample preparation or/and experimental set-up should be given as figures. Readers get more benefits.

How many repetitions of measurements are used?

How did you set the power density parameters?

  • Results and Discussion

Figures 5 and 6 should be explained in more detail in the text. “Under the power density of 0.40 GW/m2, crack parallel to the horizontal direction along the RD direction is found on the surface of all samples.” what is the reason for this?, please specify.

It is useful to add explanations of parameters to the results obtained. At least five sentences for each Figures.

The results obtained should be explained by supporting the literature. It is useful to add explanations of phenomena to the results obtained.

How was the altitude measured (Figure 8), please explain? How many times were the measurements repeated to form the graph?

  • Conclusions

The conclusions need to be improved. What is the novelty of the article? What is the practical significance? What are the differences from previous works?
Please provide the main quantitative and qualitative research findings.

 

Authors should carefully study the comments and make improvements to the article step by step. All changes should be highlighted in color.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Title: Surface damage and microstructure evolution of yttria particle 2 reinforced tungsten plate during transient laser thermal shock

Manuscript Number: 1629545

The manuscript deals with investigating the performance of yttria particles reinforced tungsten plate prepared by wet chemical method under heat loads by means of indirect coupling experiments. They reported cracking even melting damage could be observed on the surface and be accelerated by the process of recrystallization, resulting in the degradation of the ability to withstand thermal shock of the material.

The manuscript has some merits and can be considered for publication in Metals with major corrections as follows:

Major Comments:

  1. First of all, it’s hard to understand the importance of this work or the novelty of results obtained. What is not clear is, what is the influence of Yttria particle on the damage and microstructural evolution? Several studies have been performed earlier on thermal shock behavior of Tungsten and its alloy.
  2. Secondly, the authors are only explaining the results obtained and there is very little effort spent to explain the physics of the problem as to why such behavior is justified. I believe the authors need to have a detailed discussion of the results rather than just mentioning the results.
  3. For the most part, the English language appear to be acceptable. However, further fine tuning is needed.
  4. I believe, the authors need to perform extensive literature review as there are only 2 references which can be considered as current (from the year 2020), all the other references are old. It is highly recommended to add or discuss results from recent publications.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article demonstrates a detailed analysis of the research results. Research methods do not raise any questions. There are only a few recommendations for the authors that will allow readers to better understand the results obtained:

Line 79. Add a little more detailed information about the method of obtaining W-Y2O3 composite powder.

Line 82. It would be useful to provide information about the characteristics of Y2O3 particles (particle size and morphology, uniformity of particle distribution in the tungsten matrix).

Line 98. Should be corrected: 15 HZ to 15 Hz

Line 150. It would be interesting to present the results of thermal laser exposure to the surface of pure tungsten (without Y2O3 particles). If the authors do not have this information, it may be possible to provide a link to previously performed studies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I accept the changes. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop