Improvement of the Wear Resistance of Circular Saws Used in the First Transformation of Wood through the Utilization of Variable Engineered Micro-Geometry Performed on PVD-Coated WC-Co Tips

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

 

Authors need to address the following points.

·       The abstract is a summary of the introduction, materials and method, results and conclusion. This order needs to be followed. The methodology, results (quantifying data) and conclusion component of the abstract should be properly captured.

·        “WC-Co inserts brazed” first time mention WC-Co (tungsten carbide-cobalt).

·        “As reported by Warcholinski and Gilewicz 10,” what does the number 10 indicate?

·        Highlight contribution of the study to knowledge gap/specific problem. Clearly.

·        How samples or specimens prepared for “Scanning Electron Microscopy”

·        Use unit of grams as “g” not as “gr”.

·        In figure 2 (b) change the dimension of coated zone from 2.54 cm to 25.4 mm.

·        “The distance between the saws was 7.5 cm.” All other units for dimensions are in mm. Use uniform unit of mm. Check entire manuscript.

·        What are the blow holes look a like in “Figure 7”.

·        “Table 4.” Check the unit of Hardness.

·        “This behavior is related to the worn surface of the uncoated sample as shown in Fig. 18e.” Check the correctness of figure number.

·        “Gilewicz and Warcholinski26 reported” Cite the reference properly.

·        Kindly reconcile the conclusion with the study objectives.

·        What are the practical implications of this study and the future directions? kindly state

 

 

 

Author Response

Authors need to address the following points.

• The abstract is a summary of the introduction, materials and method, results and conclusion. This order needs to be followed. The methodology, results (quantifying data) and conclusion component of the abstract should be properly captured.

The abstract was modified as per the comment made by reviewer #, ref. p.1.

• “WC-Co inserts brazed” first time mention WC-Co (tungsten carbide-cobalt).

The addition was made as requested, ref. p.1, line 18.

• “As reported by Warcholinski and Gilewicz 10,” what does the number 10 indicate?

The number 10 refers to reference no. 10, which should not be in superscript as pointed out by the reviewer. The modification was made to put the ID number of the reference in brackets, ref. p.3, line 114.

• Highlight contribution of the study to knowledge gap/specific problem. Clearly.

A distinct statement about the contribution of the study was added in the conclusion section, ref. p.32.

• How samples or specimens prepared for “Scanning Electron Microscopy”

For WC-Co specimens, the preparation was done prior to coating deposition. The WC-Co samples were ground with a diamond grinding wheel having a grit size of 100, followed by ultrasonic cleaning. Finally, they were polished using 6 μm and 1 μm diamond suspension.

The preparation method was added to the manuscript, ref. p. 4, line 145 to 147.

• Use unit of grams as “g” not as “gr”.

Thank you for pointing out this bad mistake. The modification was made as requested.

• In figure 2 (b) change the dimension of coated zone from 2.54 cm to 25.4 mm.

The modification was made to figure 2b as requested, ref. p.6.

• “The distance between the saws was 7.5 cm.” All other units for dimensions are in mm. Use uniform unit of mm. Check entire manuscript.

The modification was made throughout the text as requested.

What are the blow holes look a like in “Figure 7”.

The pinholes are sites where droplets were pulled out during manipulation of the saws following the coating process. The following sentence and references were added to the text of page 9, line 293-294: “Moreover, the voids can be seen on the coated surfaces correspond to sites where droplets were pulled out while manipulating the saws after the coating process. The presence of such features and their origin is also reported in literature [28,29].”

• “Table 4.” Check the unit of Hardness.

Gpa was replaced with GPa in table 4 as requested, ref. p.10.

• “This behavior is related to the worn surface of the uncoated sample as shown in Fig. 18e.” Check the correctness of figure number.

The figure number is correct as stated in the initial version of the manuscript.

“Gilewicz and Warcholinski26 reported” Cite the reference properly.

 Citation of this reference was modified as requested.       

• Kindly reconcile the conclusion with the study objectives.

The conclusion was modified as requested by the reviewer.

• What are the practical implications of this study and the future directions? kindly state

Practical implications and future directions were added to the conclusion section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Wear of cutting tools is critical in the wood processing industry as the tools are subjected to high mechanical and thermal loads.. The study examined the impact of variable engineered micro-geometry of cutting edges and surface coating on the wear resistance of circular saws used in primary wood processing.

Similar study have been carried out and published for a wide range of perishables, but as the authors point out, it is worth to study. However, the form, wording and structure of the text are seriously flawed, so I recommend that it will be thoroughly revised and resubmitted afterwards.
Here you find my comments to explain this recommendation.

 

1 P2,Line59,You should add the reference.

2 P5,Line181,You should add the reference.

3 P6,Line203,212,You should add the reference.

3 P8,Line252,264,You should add the reference.

4 P9,Line276,280,You should add the reference.

5 What is the meaning of the p13,line326?

6 P13,line345,358 is not correct, please modify it.

7 P14,line 364”presents the variation of the coefficient of friction (COF) of the different coatings studied as a function of sliding distance at sliding speeds of 5, 10, and 25 cm/s.”please introduce the subject.

8 P14,line380 is not correct, please modify it.

9 There are many mistakes in P 15,please modify it.

Author Response

Wear of cutting tools is critical in the wood processing industry as the tools are subjected to high mechanical and thermal loads.. The study examined the impact of variable engineered micro-geometry of cutting edges and surface coating on the wear resistance of circular saws used in primary wood processing.

Similar study have been carried out and published for a wide range of perishables, but as the authors point out, it is worth to study. However, the form, wording and structure of the text are seriously flawed, so I recommend that it will be thoroughly revised and resubmitted afterwards.
Here you find my comments to explain this recommendation.

• P2,Line59, You should add the reference.

A reference was added as requested.

• P5,Line181,You should add the reference.

We think that the reviewer made a mistake while identifying a section that requires a reference since in p. 5, line 181, we are presenting the methodology that was used to mask the bodies of the saws prior to PVD coating. This description cannot be supported by an external reference.

• P6,Line203,212,You should add the reference.

A reference was added as requested.

• P8,Line252,264,You should add the reference.

Line 252: Reference was added as requested.

A reference was added with regards to the Image J software in page 9, line 298, as requested.

• P9,Line276,280,You should add the reference.

Here again we think that there may be an error of identification of sections requiring a reference because the lines referred to by the reviewer correspond to a description of the SEM micrographs that were acquired of our worn specimens. We do not understand how we could provide a reference in this context.

• What is the meaning of the p13, line 326?

The sentence was modified as follows: “Therefore, abrasive sand particles could promote coating detachment.”

• P13,l ine 345,358 is not correct, please modify it.

Line 345L The sentence was modified as follows: “It is well established that the addition of carbon to the CrN system reduces the residual stress and friction coefficient. It also increases wear resistance as well as the adhesion of the coating to the substrate [30]. »

Line 358:  This sentence is based on the results generated in our study and the statement is correct based on the results presented in figure 14.  

• P14,line 364”presents the variation of the coefficient of friction (COF) of the different coatings studied as a function of sliding distance at sliding speeds of 5, 10, and 25 cm/s. ”please introduce the subject.

The latter sentence was modified as follows: “Since the coefficient of friction (COF) of any given surface plays an important role on its wear resistance, the latter was characterized. Fig. 14 presents the variation of the coefficient of friction (COF) of  the different coatings studied as a function of sliding distance at sliding speeds of 50, 100, and 250 mm/s.” Please note that the sentence that you mentioned, is located in Line 353, not Line 364)

• P14, line380 is not correct, please modify it.

P14 Line 380 is the caption of Figure 14. The authors do not understand why there should be a modification made nor what should it be. More detail would be necessary to understand what the reviewer wanted to point out.

• There are many mistakes in P 15, please modify it.

Unfortunately, the last statement is too general for us to make adequate changes. What type of mistakes is the reviewer referring to?

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have addressed all the queries. Article may be accepted in the present form. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The author revised the comments I put forward and agreed to accept the paper.