Tribological Behavior and Wear Mechanism of Cu-SiO₂ Sintered Composite under Different Sliding Speeds

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I hope that my suggestions will help you improve the quality of your manuscript and improve its scientific sound.

 

The article is devoted to the analysis of tribological behavior of composite material Cu-SiO₂ at sliding against steel 45 at different speeds. The obtained data have scientific novelty and can be useful.

There are some serious remarks on the content of the manuscript, which should be corrected before the publication process. The main ones are as follows:

1) The abstract needs to be expanded. In particular, it is recommended that more detail show the results and their comparison with another material (steel 45).

2) Please add an explanation, why steel 45 is chosen for the friction pair with a composite material based on copper?

3) Justification is required, why the sliding speed was 1.68 m/s-3.36 m/s.

4) Page 3, line 93: with a spot size of 250 m. Is this a typo?

5) Figure 2 is too small to analyze. Please correct it.

6) There are typos in the caption of Fig. 3.

7) The caption of Fig. 5 is incorrect.

8) There are many typos, incorrect references to figures, etc. in the text, making it difficult to read and analyze the results.

9) Show the direction of sliding in Fig. 7.

10) Why is there no description of the results in 3.6? The added Fig. 8 without explanation is not informative.

11) The font in Figure 10 needs to be enlarged.

12) The conclusions require serious revision. It remains unclear which speed regime is better or worse for the use of the material that was investigated. How can the results be useful in the application of the material?

13) What was the original hardness of the materials presented for? Further, in the results and in the discussion sections, hardness is no longer mentioned.

14) And in conclusion. In the Discussion section, it says: The contact material is strengthened due to grain refinement, and it is difficult to remove.

This statement needs to be confirmed. The results do not show the grain structure before and after the experiment. On what basis did you draw conclusions about grain refinement?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript contains minor typos and inaccuracies.

 

Author Response

There are some serious remarks on the content of the manuscript, which should be corrected before the publication process. The main ones are as follows:

1) The abstract needs to be expanded. In particular, it is recommended that more detail show the results and their comparison with another material (steel 45).

The abstract has been expanded.

2) Please add an explanation, why steel 45 is chosen for the friction pair with a composite material based on copper?

An explanation has been added. The 1045 steel is chosen for the friction pair with a composite material based on copper is that the 1045 steel is usually used in other works and it is easy to prepare.

3) Justification is required, why the sliding speed was 1.68 m/s-3.36 m/s.

Considering the frictional heating and friction tester, the sliding speed was 1.68 m/s-3.36 m/s.

4) Page 3, line 93: with a spot size of 250 m. Is this a typo?

It is a typo for the spot size of 250 m Page 3, line 93. The correct form is 250 nm.

5) Figure 2 is too small to analyze. Please correct it.

Figure 2 has been modified.

6) There are typos in the caption of Fig. 3.

The typos in the caption of Fig. 3 have been corrected.

7) The caption of Fig. 5 is incorrect.

The caption of Fig. 5 has been corrected.

8) There are many typos, incorrect references to figures, etc. in the text, making it difficult to read and analyze the results.

The paper has been read three times to correct the existing typos.

9) Show the direction of sliding in Fig. 7.

The direction of sliding in Fig. 7 is added.

10) Why is there no description of the results in 3.6? The added Fig. 8 without explanation is not informative.

The description of the results in 3.6 and the explanation for Fig. 8 have been added.

11) The font in Figure 10 needs to be enlarged.

The font in Figure 10 have been enlarged.

12) The conclusions require serious revision. It remains unclear which speed regime is better or worse for the use of the material that was investigated. How can the results be useful in the application of the material?

The conclusions have been revised. The speed regime is better or worse for the use of the material is added to reveal the results that it is useful in the application of the material.

13) What was the original hardness of the materials presented for? Further, in the results and in the discussion sections, hardness is no longer mentioned.

The Cu–SiO2 composite has a hardness of HB 73 ± 3 and the annealed AISI 1045 steels are commercially available with HB180 ± 3 in hardness. In the results and in the discussion sections, the change of hardness is mentioned.

14) And in conclusion. In the Discussion section, it says: The contact material is strengthened due to grain refinement, and it is difficult to remove.

The sentence: “The contact material is strengthened due to grain refinement, and it is difficult to remove” is obscure and modified to “is strengthened due to deformation”.

This statement needs to be confirmed. The results do not show the grain structure before and after the experiment. On what basis did you draw conclusions about grain refinement?

The statement of the results have been confirmed and modified.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript the authors show results of tribological behavior and wear mechanism of Cu-SiO2 sintered composite under different sliding speeds. The manuscript could be interesting and the characterization methods are well chosen. However thera are some points which shohuld be improved before publication:

1. In the abstract authors should add more infromation flowing from the conclusions,

2. In introductin part authors should explain why they decided to use 1045 steel as a couter sample for Cu composite? Is there any other possible material?

3. Point 2.2. please add tribometer model name, producer etc.,

4. Point 2.2. the same for EDS and XRD equipement,

5. Figure 2 is illegible. please enlarge it,

6. Authors should improve some of subtitles names. The subtitle should suggest the content and not contain the name of the research method used. This is a very common mistake but should be avoided. Egzamle: “3.3. XPS spectra of Cu-SiO2 worn spot”; I suggest “3.3. chemical composition of Cu-SiO2 worn spot”. I hope You know what I mean.

My recommendation is major revision.

 

Regards

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors 1:

In the manuscript the authors show results of tribological behavior and wear mechanism of Cu-SiO2 sintered composite under different sliding speeds. The manuscript could be interesting and the characterization methods are well chosen. However, there are some points which should be improved before publication:

1、In the abstract authors should add more information flowing from the conclusions.

 

More information flowing from the conclusions have been added into the abstract. See revised manuscript Abstract part.

 

2、In introduction part, authors should explain why they decided to use 1045 steel as a counter sample for Cu composite? Is there any other possible material?

 

The 1045 steel was selected as a counter sample for Cu composite is：the 1045 steel is usually used in other works. There are many other possible material can be used，such as GCr15 steel.

 

3、Point 2.2. please add tribometer model name, producer etc.,

4、Point 2.2. the same for EDS and XRD equipment.

 

The tribometer model name, producer etc. and EDS equipment name, producer etc. are added in Point 2.2. The XRD equipment is not used in this work.

The worn surface/subsurface of Cu–SiO2 pins were prepared for scanning electron microscopy (JSM 5600LV) coupling energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX, Kevex) observation.

 

5、Figure 2 is illegible. please enlarge it.

Figure 2 has been enlarged in the revised manuscript.

 

6、Authors should improve some of subtitles names. The subtitle should suggest the content and not contain the name of the research method used. This is a very common mistake but should be avoided. Egzamle: “3.3. XPS spectra of Cu-SiO2 worn spot”; I suggest “3.3. chemical composition of Cu-SiO2 worn spot”. I hope You know what I mean.

Some of subtitles names have been improved in the revised manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the manuscript is Ok. My decision - accept.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my oppinion the manuscript is revised and could be accept.

Regards