Next Article in Journal
Synthesis and Characterization of Hydrophobic and Low Surface Tension Polyurethane
Next Article in Special Issue
Wearing Resistance of Metal Coating Layers after Laser Beam Heat Treatment
Previous Article in Journal
Steel Surface Doped with Nb via Modulated Electron-Beam Irradiation: Structure and Properties
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Kinetic Modelling of Powder-Pack Boronized 4Cr5MoSiV1 Steel by Two Distinct Approaches

Coatings 2023, 13(6), 1132; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings13061132
by Katia Benyakoub 1, Mourad Keddam 1, Brahim Boumaali 1 and Michał Kulka 2,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Coatings 2023, 13(6), 1132; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings13061132
Submission received: 1 June 2023 / Revised: 15 June 2023 / Accepted: 16 June 2023 / Published: 20 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Surface Treatment on Metals and Their Alloys)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is quite an interesting topic on deepening the power-pack bosonization by kinetic modelling. The progress provided in the current manuscript shed some light on tailoring the bosonization process. Thereby, further consideration may be taken. Yet some concerns should be addressed first:

1)     the physic model should be provided in detail along with the schematic graph; meanwhile, Fig. 1 seems poor-understandable and the authors should give more introduction on the graph to help general readors to follow;

2)     It is confusing for the Πi’s derivation and the logic to the following quantities as appeared on page 147, and more details should be given;

3)     the “Conclusions” should be restructured to refelt the work’s real findings or new results;

4)     Some mistakes should be avoided, such as “The parameter DFe2B represents the value of a boron diffusion coefficient in FeB for the given bronzing temperature” on page 120, where “FeB” should be “Fe2B”, and the article a may miss in the “C0 represents the solubility limit of boron in the matrix which is of negligible value” for the countable noun “negligible value”.

Good

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The conclusion section need to be revised.

English need to be improved. But generally it is OK.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Further improvement in the manuscript requires the author to respond to the following comments.

1)      The problem of the research should be discussed in the abstract, along with the purpose of the study.

2)      2) What is the issue with steel that has a low surface hardness? Why is boron selected for boronizing steel? What about other metals that could be used to increase the surface hardness of steel? It must be mentioned in the introduction.

3)      Check the entire manuscript for typographical errors.

4)      I believe there is something lacking in the header, “2.2. Based dimensional analysis approach”

5)      The author needs to describe or define Equation 8.

6)      On page 5; line 159, the author should discuss the Power Law and how it relates to this study.

7)      In the introduction, the author should discuss boronizing treatment and powder-pack boronizing treatment.

8)      Please include a discussion of the hermetical recipient in the manuscript.

9)      The K and K' values in Table 1 increase with temperature. Why? It ought to be discussed.

10)   Why do powder-pack boronized high alloy steels have greater activation energies than paste-plasma boriding? Discuss it.

11)   The author should discuss the plasma paste process and how it may be more effective than other relevant techniques?

12)    Is the line correct?, “In the based dimensional analysis model”.

13)   In conclusion, the author should specify which multiphase systems can benefit from this research.

 

14)    The author's excessive self-citations should be removed from the manuscript.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript in its current form may be accepted for publication. 

 

Back to TopTop