## 3 Results and Discussion
As the cladding layer lowered, like EEMMC2.0-B, the fraction of the  
Figure 5: Microstructure at the (**a**) top part, (**b**) center part, and (**c**) bottom part of EEMMC1.0. EEMMC1.5-T and EEMMC2.0-T were analyzed by EPMA (Figure 10). In EEMMC1.5-T, the particles consisted of Ti, C, and O, and the metal matrix had relatively high Al, Cr, Co, Fe, and Ni contents. Most of the EEMMC2.0-T showed similar distributions with EEMMC1.5-T, but the cobalt distribution was reversed, which is indicated by white arrows. In EEMMC2.0-T, there was more cobalt content in the reinforcing particles than in the matrix. The high heat input in EEMMC2.0-T dissolved the reinforcing particles and contributed to the diffusion of cobalt from the matrix to the reinforcing particles. The block-shaped particle of EEMMC1.5-T showed a distinct interface, whereas the particle of EEMMC2.0-T had a smooth interface due to diffusion. EDS analysis was measured to analyze the composition of the particles and the metal matrix by separating the particles (P) and the matrix (M) in the microstructure of each top part of the samples. M and P were added after the existing names, and points were used as shown in Table 3. Block-shaped particles had a very high Ti content, close to 90% in the EDS analysis (Table 3), whereas particles with dendritic morphology of EEMMC1.0-T-P and dissolved particles of EEMMC2.0-T-P had a relatively low Ti content. Table 4 summarizes the morphology of reinforcing particles for each sample and the main mechanisms for manufacturing them. EEMMC1.0 formed a thin and inhomogeneous cladding layer due to the weak laser energy. The particles in EEMMC1.0 easily coalesce with each other, and dendritic growth occurs. EEMMC1.5-T kept the reinforcing particles homogeneously with blocky morphology and unimodal distribution. In EEMMC1.5-C and EEMMC1.5-B, small particles dissolve as the particles descended, and large particles develop dendritic growths, making the particle distribution wider than at the top part. In the case of EEMMC2.0, the reinforcing particles were diluted with the substrate material and dissolved or disappeared completely, forming a sharp distribution. The Ti content of EEMMC2.0-T-P in the reinforcing particles decreases compared to EEMMC1.5-T-P. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **Al (at\%)** & **Ti (at\%)** & **Cr (at\%)** & **Fe (at\%)** & **Co (at\%)** & **Ni (at\%)** \\ \hline EEMMC1.0-T-M & 5.3 & 4.8 & 26.2 & 50.7 & 3.3 & 9.7 \\ EEMMC1.0-T-P & 3.4 & 57.0 & 9.5 & 22.6 & 3.1 & 4.5 \\ EEMMC1.5-T-M & 13.1 & 1.4 & 24.3 & 39.3 & 7.5 & 14.3 \\ EEMMC1.5-T-P & 1.2 & 89.8 & 4.5 & 2.7 & 0.8 & 1.1 \\ EEMMC2.0-T-M & 5.8 & 2.7 & 20.0 & 57.1 & 3.1 & 11.3 \\ EEMMC2.0-T-P & 3.1 & 51.9 & 9.4 & 25.4 & 4.9 & 5.3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: EDS point analysis data (average of 5 positions). Figure 9: Area distribution of reinforcing particles in EEMMC2.0-T, EEMMC2.0-C, and EEMMC2.0-B. The micro-hardness was measured for each sample shown in Figure 11. All samples were measured along the arrow lines in Figure 3, and EEMMC1.0 was measured at two lines due to its inhomogeneous microstructure. In EEMMC1.0, the maximum hardness of line B where spherical reinforcing particles were aggregated, was 1000-1100 HV, and the hardness of line A was found to be 400 HV. EEMMC1.5 exhibited a 0.9-mm-thick coating layer and a high hardness in the range of 700-900 HV, with values up to 900 HV near the surface. EEMMC2.0 showed a low hardness value of 300-350 HV due to the small particle fraction and the development of a gamma phase with a FCC structure. Table 5 summarizes the mechanical properties of the coatings measured by a nano-indentation test. The reinforcing particles of EEMMC2.0-T were too small to measure only the reinforcing particles with a nano-indenter. Since the hardness values between particles and matrix were measured similarly, EEMMC2.0-T-M and EEMMC2.0-T-P were averaged together.