Microstructure and Wear-Resistant Properties of Ni80Al20-MoS2 Composite Coating on Sled Track Slippers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Autors
Yours manuscript, entitled: “ Microstructure and Wear-resisting Property of Ni80Al20-MoS2 Composite Coating on Sled Track Slipper” is very interesting.The paper could be published after the following comments are addressed. Detailed comments are given below:
1. The error of EDS analysis should be given (fig.2a and fig. 2b)
2. Please include an enlargement in the description of Figures 4 and 5.
3. A high-magnification cross-sectional image is missing (contact coating - substrate). This will let you know the connection is correct. As well as determine the "adhesion" of the coating (and the wettability of the substrate).
4. Identify structure components in Fig. 5a.
5. Show what the desired thickness of the coating should be. Indicate also how much time (robot hours) it will last in operation.
6. Please provide a diagram of the measuring station for abrasion.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers:
We deeply appreciate the time and effort you have spent in reviewing our manuscript (Manuscript ID: Coatings-802371, Title: Microstructure and Wear-resisting Property of Ni80Al20-MoS2 Composite Coating on Sled Track Slipper). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' comments, and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors. Here below is our description on revision according to the reviewers' comments.
Responds to the reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1: Yours manuscript, entitled: “ Microstructure and Wear-resisting Property of Ni80Al20-MoS2 Composite Coating on Sled Track Slipper” is very interesting.The paper could be published after the following comments are addressed. Detailed comments are given below:
1. The error of EDS analysis should be given (fig.2a and fig. 2b)
Thank you for being so conscientious and we have added error of EDS analysis in Figure 2.
2.Please include an enlargement in the description of Figures 4 and 5.
It is really true as reviewer suggested that an enlargement in the description of Figures 4 and 5 should be added and we have added in revised manuscript.
3. A high-magnification cross-sectional image is missing (contact coating - substrate). This will let you know the connection is correct. As well as determine the "adhesion" of the coating (and the wettability of the substrate).
Thank you for being so conscientious and dedicated, we have added high-magnification cross-sectional images in Figure 4 to describe the good adhesion of the coatings.
4. Identify structure components in Fig. 5a.
We quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the insightful comments about structure components in Figure 5a, and we have added it.
5. Show what the desired thickness of the coating should be. Indicate also how much time (robot hours) it will last in operation.
Thank you for being so conscientious and the illustration of operation time in Section 1.2 has been added. Moreover, the desired thickness of the coating has been explained in revised manuscript.
6. Please provide a diagram of the measuring station for abrasion.
It is really true as reviewer suggested that a diagram of the measuring station for abrasion should be added and we have added Figure 4, the diagram of the measuring station for abrasion in revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
COATINGS-802371_REVISION
This paper is interesting, but in present form cannot be recommended to publish in COATINGS. There are too many inaccuracies and speculations in presented article. Recommendation: MAJOR REVISION
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. l.63 – “precocious wire cutting equipment.” – Little clear.
2. l.87 – “sand blast the substrate” – Roughness of surface should be added.
3. l.103 – “Ball-on-disc friction test with GCr15 ball for the slipper substrate and various coatings” – Are the tested surfaces ground? Moreover, are the tested surfaces with MoS2 ground, too?
4. l.104- “HT-1000 high-temperature frictional wear tester.” – What was the test temperature?
5. l.112 – “Fig 4 shows different Ni80Al20 coating” – What about coatings with MoS2 film?
6. l.113 – “the coating is smooth” – Roughness of coating must be added.
7. l.117 – “low ion beam energy and low temperature.” - The authors did not measure ion beam energy and temperature, it is just speculation.
8. l.118 – “the fusant has bad fluidity” - Little clear.
9. l.121 – “poor bonding strength” - It is just speculation, the authors did not measure bonding strength.
10.l.122 -the coating becomes smoother – Roughness of coating must be added.
11.l.123 - Although the depressions and prominences are less – As above
12.l.124 - plenty of micropores still exist – Porosity of coating must be added.
13.l.125 – “It indicates that the ion beam energy is increasing” As earlier, the authors did not measure ion beam energy, it is just speculation.
14.l.128 – the coating can be even smoother – Roughness of coating must be added.
15.l.130 - the density and bonding strength with the substrate is higher. – As earlier, it is just speculation, the authors did not measure the density and bonding strength.
16.l.146 - Ni …………Fig 5(a), - Should be “Fig. 5(b)
17.l.164 – “Vickers hardness curve” – Results in the form of curve is misleading (substrate is the other material), a bar graph would be appropriate. Moreover, standard deviations must be added.
18.l.177 – “The fiction coefficient curses are shown in Fig 8.” - Standard deviations must be added. Moreover should be “courses”.
19.l.190 – “along the rubbing direction” - The rubbing direction should be shown by arrow.
20.l.203 – “The thin flake of crushed MoS2 particles adheres on the friction surface” – This phenomenon should be shown under a larger magnification, otherwise it is just speculation.
21.l.206 – “Moreover, MoS2 particle size……………… lubrication film on Ni80Al20 coating,” - As above.
22.l.217 – “are shown in Figs …. and 11.” - Standard deviations must be added.
23.l.220 – “coating is 3.62(10-6 mm-3·N-1·m-1), comparing with 4.85 (10-6 mm-3·N-1·m-1) of substrate,” – As above.
24.l.229 – “are 4.06 (10-6 mm-3·N-1·m-1) and 3.23(10-6 mm-3·N-1·m-1) respectively” - As above.
25.l.230 –“ It should be noted that, after covering MoS2 film, both the profiles of the wear scars and the volume abrasion rates are calculated based on the reference of the thickness of the film.” – Methodology of calculation must be added to 1.3. Coating Characteristics and Property Testing.
26.l.232 – “As shown in Fig 9- EDS element test for wear scars,” – It is speculation, in Fig. 9 this phenomenon is not visible.
27. Conclusions are not justified.
Recommendation: MAJOR REVISION
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We deeply appreciate the time and effort you have spent in reviewing our manuscript (Manuscript ID: Coatings-802371, Title: Microstructure and Wear-resisting Property of Ni80Al20-MoS2 Composite Coating on Sled Track Slipper). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' comments, and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors. Here below is our description on revision according to the reviewers' comments.
Responds to the reviewer 2's comments:
This paper is interesting, but in present form cannot be recommended to publish in COATINGS. There are too many inaccuracies and speculations in presented article.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
l.63 – “precocious wire cutting equipment.” – Little clear.
Response: The sentence“precocious wire cutting equipment” has been revised as “All samples were machined into a size of 30mm×20 mm×10mm by electro-discharge machining”.
l.87 – “sand blast the substrate” – Roughness of surface should be added.
Response: Roughness of all samples in the revised manuscript has been added, as well as the testing method.
l.103 – “Ball-on-disc friction test with GCr15 ball for the slipper substrate and various coatings” – Are the tested surfaces ground? Moreover, are the tested surfaces with MoS2 ground, too?
Response: According to the surface and cross-sectional micro-morphologies of the samples, only the slipper substrate, the NiAl coating at 18kW, the slipper substrate with MoS2, and the NiAl coating at 18kW MoS2 were tested. And we have revised it and marked in red in the manuscript.
l.104- “HT-1000 high-temperature frictional wear tester.” – What was the test temperature?
Response: The wear test was at room temperature.
l.112 – “Fig 4 shows different Ni80Al20 coating” – What about coatings with MoS2 film?
Response: In this paper, we compared the Ni80Al20 coatings at different powers and chose the ideal coating, and then we test the wear resistance of the ideal coating with and without MoS2 film.
l.113 – “the coating is smooth” – Roughness of coating must be added.
Response: Roughness of all samples in the revised manuscript has been added, as well as the testing method.
l.117 – “low ion beam energy and low temperature.” - The authors did not measure ion beam energy and temperature, it is just speculation.
Response: Relevant references of the temperature of ion beam at low power has been add in the manuscript.
l.118 – “the fusant has bad fluidity” - Little clear.
Response: The bad fluidity causes rough surface and loose micro-structure and it has been added in the manuscript.
l.121 – “poor bonding strength” - It is just speculation, the authors did not measure bonding strength.
Response: Indeed, there was no bonding strength tested in the paper, and we compared their bonding strength from the compactness of the micro-structures and at the interface.
l.122 -the coating becomes smoother – Roughness of coating must be added.
Response: Roughness of all samples in the revised manuscript has been added, as well as the testing method.
l.123 - Although the depressions and prominences are less – As above
Response: Roughness of all samples in the revised manuscript has been added, as well as the testing method.
l.124 - plenty of micropores still exist – Porosity of coating must be added.
Response: Porosity of the coatings has been added in the manuscript.
l.125 – “It indicates that the ion beam energy is increasing” As earlier, the authors did not measure ion beam energy, it is just speculation.
Response: Relevant references of the temperature of ion beam at low power has been add in the manuscript.
l.128 – the coating can be even smoother – Roughness of coating must be added.
Response: Roughness of all samples in the revised manuscript has been added, as well as the testing method.
l.130 - the density and bonding strength with the substrate is higher. – As earlier, it is just speculation, the authors did not measure the density and bonding strength.
Response: Indeed, there was no bonding strength tested in the paper, and we compared their bonding strength from the compactness of the micro-structures and at the interface.
l.146 - Ni …………Fig 5(a), - Should be “Fig. 5(b)
Response: We have revised it in the manuscript.
l.164 – “Vickers hardness curve” – Results in the form of curve is misleading (substrate is the other material), a bar graph would be appropriate. Moreover, standard deviations must be added.
l.177 – “The fiction coefficient curses are shown in Fig 8.” - Standard deviations must be added. Moreover should be “courses”.
l.190 – “along the rubbing direction” - The rubbing direction should be shown by arrow.
Response: We have added it in the manuscript.
l.203 – “The thin flake of crushed MoS2 particles adheres on the friction surface” – This phenomenon should be shown under a larger magnification, otherwise it is just speculation.
Response: Relevant references of the temperature of ion beam at low power has been add in the manuscript.
l.206 – “Moreover, MoS2 particle size……………… lubrication film on Ni80Al20 coating,” - As above.
Response: Relevant references of the temperature of ion beam at low power has been add in the manuscript.
l.217 – “are shown in Figs …. and 11.” - Standard deviations must be added.
Response: In fact, the profiles and volume abrasion rates of the samples were measured and calculated by TR300 profilometer, and there was no standard deviation.
l.220 – “coating is 3.62(10-6 mm-3•N-1•m-1), comparing with 4.85 (10-6 mm-3•N-1•m-1) of substrate,” – As above.
Response: In fact, the profiles and volume abrasion rates of the samples were measured and calculated by TR300 profilometer, and there was no standard deviation.
l.229 – “are 4.06 (10-6 mm-3•N-1•m-1) and 3.23(10-6 mm-3•N-1•m-1) respectively” - As above.
Response: In fact, the profiles and volume abrasion rates of the samples were measured and calculated by TR300 profilometer, and there was no standard deviation.
l.230 –“ It should be noted that, after covering MoS2 film, both the profiles of the wear scars and the volume abrasion rates are calculated based on the reference of the thickness of the film.” – Methodology of calculation must be added to 1.3. Coating Characteristics and Property Testing.
Response: In fact, the profiles and volume abrasion rates of the samples were measured and calculated by TR300 profilometer, and there was no methodology of calculation.
l.232 – “As shown in Fig 9- EDS element test for wear scars,” – It is speculation, in Fig. 9 this phenomenon is not visible.
Response: Due to limited space, we just showed the surface morphologies and we described the EDS element test in the paper.
Conclusions are not justified.
Response: Conclusion has been revised.
We appreciate for editor and reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. All revised parts have been marked in red. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 3 Report
I see certain shortcomings in the introduction which needs to be extended significantly, and in the Conclusion, which similarly needs to be extended. I suggest adding a legend to Figures 8 and 10. I also suggest describing in more detail the technical equipment that was used and to elaborate in more detail the methodology of the presented research.
After processing of these comments, I recommend publishing this paper.
Author Response
Reviewer #3: I see certain shortcomings in the introduction which needs to be extended significantly, and in the Conclusion, which similarly needs to be extended. I suggest adding a legend to Figures 8 and 10. I also suggest describing in more detail the technical equipment that was used and to elaborate in more detail the methodology of the presented research.
We quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the insightful comments, and we have added recent developments and references on NiAl coating and MoS2 film in the introduction, and we have added adding a legend to Figures 9, 10 and 11, as well as the conclusion in revised manuscript. Moreover, more details about the research methods and technical equipment have been added.
We appreciate for editor and reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. All revised parts have been marked in red. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
COATINGS-802371_REVISION_2
Some amendments have been introduced but this paper still needs some improvements.
Some questions are missing or unclear. A single test cannot be the basis for a research conclusion.
Recommendation: MAJOR REVISION
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
l.95 – “sand blast the substrate” – As in the first review, roughness of surface should be added.
l.111 – “Ball-on-disc friction test with GCr15 ball for the slipper substrate and various coatings” – As in the first review, are the tested surfaces ground? Moreover, are the tested surfaces with MoS2 ground, too? What about roughness of surfaces with MoS2?
l.121 – “Fig 5 shows different Ni80Al20 coating” – As in the first review, what about cross-section and surface of coatings with MoS2 film?
l.141 - the density and bonding strength with the substrate is higher. – As in the first review, it is just speculation, the authors did not measure the density and bonding strength. Comparison and results from other articles cannot be the basis for conclusions from the carried out research.
- 157 – “There are three different microstructures……………. the dark color area is Al rich organization.” – There is one microstructure with different phases. Moreover, the description in Fig. 6a without EDS point analysis is not reliable.
- 176 – “Vickers hardness curve” – As in the first review, results in the form of curve is misleading (substrate is the other material), a bar graph would be appropriate. Moreover, standard deviations must be added.
l.187 – “The following samples…………….composite coating.” – This part should be moved to 1.3. Coating Characteristics and Property Testing.
l.189 – “The fiction coefficient curses are shown in Fig 9.” - As in the first review, standard deviations must be added. Moreover should be “courses”. A single test cannot be the basis for a research conclusion.
l.215 – “The thin flake of crushed MoS2 particles adheres on the friction surface” – As in the first review, this phenomenon should be shown under a larger magnification, otherwise it is just speculation. Results from other articles cannot be the basis for conclusions from the carried out research.
l.218 – “Moreover, MoS2 particle size……………… lubrication film on Ni80Al20 coating,” - As in the first review, as above.
l.229 – “are shown in Figs …. 11and 12.” - As in the first review, standard deviations must be added.
l.232 – “coating is 3.62(10-6 mm-3·N-1·m-1), comparing with 4.85 (10-6 mm-3·N-1·m-1) of substrate,” – As in the first review, as above.
l.240 – “are 4.06 (10-6 mm-3·N-1·m-1) and 3.23(10-6 mm-3·N-1·m-1) respectively” - As in the first review, as above.
l.242 –“ It should be noted that, after covering MoS2 film, both the profiles of the wear scars and the volume abrasion rates are calculated based on the reference of the thickness of the film.” – As in the first review, methodology of calculation must be added to 1.3. Coating Characteristics and Property Testing.
l.244 – “As shown in Fig 10- EDS element test for wear scars,” – As in the first review, it is speculation, in Fig. 9 this phenomenon is not visible.
Conclusions are not justified.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers:
We deeply appreciate the time and effort you have spent in reviewing our manuscript (Manuscript ID: Coatings-802371, Title: Microstructure and Wear-resisting Property of Ni80Al20-MoS2 Composite Coating on Sled Track Slipper). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' comments, and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors. Here below is our description on revision according to the reviewers' comments.
Responds to the reviewers' comments:
l.95 – “sand blast the substrate” – As in the first review, roughness of surface should be added.
Thank you for being so conscientious and we have added the surface roughness of blasted substrate.
l.111 – “Ball-on-disc friction test with GCr15 ball for the slipper substrate and various coatings” – As in the first review, are the tested surfaces ground? Moreover, are the tested surfaces with MoS2 ground, too? What about roughness of surfaces with MoS2?
It is really true as reviewer suggested that the details of friction test, as well as the surface roughness should be added, and we have added then in the revised manuscript.
l.121 – “Fig 5 shows different Ni80Al20 coating” – As in the first review, what about cross-section and surface of coatings with MoS2 film?
We quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the insightful comments about cross-section and surface of coatings with MoS2 film, however, due to the constraints of conditions, and the MoS2 film was non-conductive, so we studied the surface of tested coatings with MoS2 film in Figure 10.
l.141 - the density and bonding strength with the substrate is higher. – As in the first review, it is just speculation, the authors did not measure the density and bonding strength. Comparison and results from other articles cannot be the basis for conclusions from the carried out research.
It is really true as reviewer suggested that we should explained why the bonding strength was higher. As shown in Figure 5(f), there were fewer micro-pores and micro-cracks in the cross-sectional structure especially at the interface, and it could make a conclusion that the bonding strength was improved.
- 157 – “There are three different microstructures……………. the dark color area is Al rich organization.” – There is one microstructure with different phases. Moreover, the description in Fig. 6a without EDS point analysis is not reliable.
Thank you for being so conscientious about the EDS analysis and we have added it in the manuscript.
- 176 – “Vickers hardness curve” – As in the first review, results in the form of curve is misleading (substrate is the other material), a bar graph would be appropriate. Moreover, standard deviations must be added.
We quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the insightful comments, and we have changed it to a bar graph and we have added error bars.
l.187 – “The following samples…………….composite coating.” – This part should be moved to 1.3. Coating Characteristics and Property Testing.
It is really true as reviewer suggested that the details of wear test should be moved to Section 1.3.
l.189 – “The fiction coefficient curses are shown in Fig 9.” - As in the first review, standard deviations must be added. Moreover should be “courses”. A single test cannot be the basis for a research conclusion.
Thank you for being so conscientious and dedicated, however, we only get the fiction coefficient curses due to the constraints of conditions, and there was no standard deviation output.
l.215 – “The thin flake of crushed MoS2 particles adheres on the friction surface” – As in the first review, this phenomenon should be shown under a larger magnification, otherwise it is just speculation. Results from other articles cannot be the basis for conclusions from the carried out research.
It is really true as reviewer suggested that a larger magnification of MoS2 particles should be added and we have added in Figure 10(c) and (d).
l.218 – “Moreover, MoS2 particle size……………… lubrication film on Ni80Al20 coating,” - As in the first review, as above.
It is really true as reviewer suggested that a larger magnification of MoS2 particles should be added and we have added in Figure 10(c) and (d).
l.229 – “are shown in Figs …. 11and 12.” - As in the first review, standard deviations must be added.
Thank you for being so conscientious. As for Figure 11, we only get the fiction coefficient curses due to the constraints of conditions, and there was no standard deviation output. As for Figure 12, we have added error bars in it.
l.232 – “coating is 3.62(10-6 mm-3•N-1•m-1), comparing with 4.85 (10-6 mm-3•N-1•m-1) of substrate,” – As in the first review, as above.
Thank you for being so conscientious and dedicated, we have added error bars in Figure 12 and relevant statement in the revised manuscript.
l.240 – “are 4.06 (10-6 mm-3•N-1•m-1) and 3.23(10-6 mm-3•N-1•m-1) respectively” - As in the first review, as above.
Thank you for being so conscientious and dedicated, we have added error bars in Figure 12 and relevant statement in the revised manuscript.
l.242 –“ It should be noted that, after covering MoS2 film, both the profiles of the wear scars and the volume abrasion rates are calculated based on the reference of the thickness of the film.” – As in the first review, methodology of calculation must be added to 1.3. Coating Characteristics and Property Testing.
It is really true as reviewer suggested that methodology of calculation must be added to 1.3 and we have added it.
l.244 – “As shown in Fig 10- EDS element test for wear scars,” – As in the first review, it is speculation, in Fig. 9 this phenomenon is not visible.
It is really true as reviewer suggested that a larger magnification of MoS2 particles should be added and we have added in Figure 10(c) and (d).
Conclusions are not justified.
We quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the insightful comments about Section Conclusion and we have revised it.
We appreciate for editor and reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. All revised parts have been marked in red. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
