Quasi-Static Sliding Wear Analysis of 3D Rough Surface Considering Changes in the Point of Contact
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In abstract should be found some results of your paper. Most of papers have some improvment (shown in percentige) in Abstract.
There is a problem with links in the paper. This has to be solved so that we can read it. There are a lot of "errors".
1. Theoretical Background is starting with a Figure. It should start with text and first menshon of the Figure should be before a Figure.
Dear Authors, the main problem of this paper, as well as the similiar papers, is that there is no experiment which is necessary for the verification of results. In cases like this when you are having a lot of numerical results and no experiment it would be very good to have one result that is verified by an experiment.
The way how you are using Archards model and Hertz pressure is fine. I do not see problem with that. But, can you answer me on the question where are you comparing with reality?
Author Response
Point 1: In abstract should be found some results of your paper. Most of papers have some improvment (shown in percentige) in Abstract.
Response 1: We have added a sentence at the end of the abstract to help readers find some results.
Point 2: There is a problem with links in the paper. This has to be solved so that we can read it. There are a lot of "errors".
Response 2: Reference errors due to a technical issue are fixed. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
Point 3: Theoretical Background is starting with a Figure. It should start with text and first menshon of the Figure should be before a Figure.
Response 3: It is modified to start with text, which contains a description of the figure.
Point 4: Dear Authors, the main problem of this paper, as well as the similiar papers, is that there is no experiment which is necessary for the verification of results. In cases like this when you are having a lot of numerical results and no experiment it would be very good to have one result that is verified by an experiment.
The way how you are using Archards model and Hertz pressure is fine. I do not see problem with that. But, can you answer me on the question where are you comparing with reality?
Response 4: The model has already been used for numerical analysis in several papers, and their findings have been compared and verified with experiments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have used an analytical approach to study the sliding wear with an adhesive wear mechanism. Perhaps the article would be of interest to researchers who are supporters of the analytical modeling in the tribology. For experimenters, what the authors wrote raises a number of questions.
The structuring of the article is not good - there is an obvious error in the numbering of sections and subsections. The systematic error (see for example the bottom of page 3) that appears makes reading difficult. Probably, the reason is technical, which occurred during the generation of the pdf file?
What do the authors think about the influence of the surface integrity of the contacting surfaces on the wear parameters? In the text, only the geometric part of the surface integrity parameters (one height and the two shape parameters of the roughness – I will just remind you that they are at least 28 in number) are considered. And the parameters describing the physical-mechanical state of surface integrity? In formula (8): H – hardness or micro-hardness?
Author Response
Point 1: The structuring of the article is not good - there is an obvious error in the numbering of sections and subsections. The systematic error (see for example the bottom of page 3) that appears makes reading difficult. Probably, the reason is technical, which occurred during the generation of the pdf file?
Response 2: Reference errors due to a technical issue are fixed. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
Point 2: What do the authors think about the influence of the surface integrity of the contacting surfaces on the wear parameters? In the text, only the geometric part of the surface integrity parameters (one height and the two shape parameters of the roughness – I will just remind you that they are at least 28 in number) are considered. And the parameters describing the physical-mechanical state of surface integrity?
Response 2: In our understanding, surface integrity refers to the surface condition of a workpiece as a result of the manufacturing process. However, the rough surfaces used in this study were generated numerically. Therefore, surface integrity is not considered in this paper.
Point 3: In formula (8): H – hardness or micro-hardness?
Response 3: H is hardness and is is expressed in the following sentence of formula (8).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors improve the manuscript according to my review.
