Numerical Modelling and Simulation for Sliding Wear Effect with Microstructural Evolution of Sputtered Titanium Carbide Thin Film on Metallic Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have conducted this research in an interesting area of research. However the paper needs serious revision in the light of the following observations:

1. The abstract needs to be rewritten in clear and technical writing style. Also the novelty sof this tresearch should be highlighted.

2. Why did the authors chose TiC, why not any other coating.

3. Substrate selection needs to be justified in the light of industrial requirements and economic significance as well as application areas.

4. Design of experiments should be discussed and presented clearly. Experimental setup should be properly described.

5. Conclusions section should be revisited and revised in the light of the research aims and objectives as well as industrial significance.

6. English language usage is in need of a major overhaul preferably by an English speaker/professor/instructor.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is not up to the mark expected of a journal article.

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Thank you very much for taking your time to review this research article. Please, kindly find the detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1: The abstract needs to be rewritten in clear and technical writing style. Also, the novelty of this research should be highlighted.

Response 1: Thank you for this comment, however, the abstract was carefully drafted with the novelty clearly stated. The novelty of this research article includes the deposition technique of (RFMS) thin film on the substrates with varied process parameters. Also, numerical simulation of wear behavior for TiC-Br and TiC-Cu materials were performed using ANSYS software.

Comments 2: Why did the authors chose TiC, why not any other coating.

Response 2: Very good comment from the reviewer. The reason behind using TiC as opposed other coating materials, is that, the outstanding properties of chosen (TiC) coating material as a ceramic and brittle material for better resistance to wear.

Comments 3: Substrate selection needs to be justified in the light of industrial requirements and economic significance as well as application areas.

Response 3: The application areas of substrates were stated in the abstract and introduction sections of the article, such as thermomechanical application. However, the industrial requirements of the selected substrates are due to their substantial material properties, such as resistance to wear and corrosion, superior hardness, and as well as the density.

NB: Brass is the alloy of copper and zinc (Cu & Zn), whereby copper is slightly denser than brass.

Comments 4: Design of experiments (DoE) should be discussed and presented clearly. Experimental setup should be properly described.

Response 4: Experimental setup is beyond the scope of this research study. Thus, design of experiments is been represented by the schematic diagram of sliding wear process shown in Figure 1 of the article. However, computer simulation process using ANSYS Workbench 2019 R2 was used as the design, modeling and simulation analysis of the sliding wear process.

Comments 5: Conclusions section should be revisited and revised in the light of the research aims and objectives, and as well as industrial significance.

Response 5: Thank you for this comment. The initial aim and objective of this research study was already stated from line 289 to 290. In addition, the statement stated in the bracket [Finite element (FE) simulation analysis from ANSYS Workbench software package was used for the research study] was however serves as parts of the aims and objectives of the research work. The statement can be found in lines 291 and 292 of the conclusions section. Also, lines 295, 296 and 297 give short notes on the industrial significance.

Comments 6: English language usage is in need of a major overhaul, preferably by an English speaker/professor/instructor.

Response 6: The English language of this research paper was edited by an experience colleague and a prolific writer.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paper No.: coatings-2808223

Title:   Numerical Modeling and Simulation for Sliding Wear Effect with Microstructural Evolution of Sputtered Titanium Carbide Thin Film on Metallic Materials

The presented work is very good and deserves to be published. However, there are many raised comments that should be treated.

1-      What are the application fields of copper and brass which need such hard coating?

2-     IF this coating material is designed for cutting tools, why the authors did not use a substrate of tooling material?

3-     The introduction should be ended with a clear aim of the present work.

4-     Please delete the empty page (page 8 -  line 194)

5-     In both substrates (Br & Cu) in contact in wear is between the steel ball and the coating, what is the reason of changing the CoF ? It could not be the materials, but the different applied load.

6-     Please include the hardness value of the study material in table 1.

7-     Do you see that material of the steel ball (AISI -E52100) is hard enough to be used as a counterpart in wear test?

8-     The legend text is not visible. Please reproduce the images with better resolution and enlarge the legend font size.

9-      The load of sliding wear should be selected not to produce such high deformation of the coating and substrate shown in Figures 6 & 8.

10-  In Figure 9 (a,b), it is difficult to distinguish between the coating layer and the substrate. Please indicate both component using annotation or replace the images.  

11-  Why did the authors not used same loads for both substrates, especially the coating material is the same? This could produce better comparison in Figure 9 (e &f).

12- In Figure 9 (g) the stationary state of mild wear has been changed after 50s to sever wear. This sever wear should be given more time to see what is the next development.

13- Please include some values of key numerical results in the conclusion.

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Thank you very much for taking your time to review this research article. Please, kindly find the detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1: What are the application fields of copper and brass which need such hard coating?

Response 1: Thank you for this comment. The application includes cutting tools and automotive, and these applications were already mentioned in abstract and conclusions sections.

Comments 2: IF this coating material is designed for cutting tools, why the authors did not use a substrate of tooling material?

Response 2: The reason is to use a harder material coating on less hard material for surface engineering applications.

Comments 3: The introduction should be ended with a clear aim of the present work.

Response 3: Thank you for the comment. This comment has been updated on the article, and can be found in the Introduction section between lines 112 and 114.

Comments 4: Please delete the empty page (page 8 – line 194)

Response 4: The empty page is deleted.

Comments 5: In both substrates (Br & Cu) in contact in wear is between the steel ball and the coating, what is the reason of changing the CoF? It could not be the materials, but the different applied load.

Response 5: Thanks for this comment. The reason is because, wear operation of materials generates CoF at varies load application.

Comments 6: Please include the hardness value of the study material in table 1.

Response 6: Noted with thanks. Hardness values included in table 1.

Comments 7: Do you see that material of the steel ball (AISI-E52100) is hard enough to be used as a counterpart in wear test?

Response 7: Alloy steel (E52100) material is not as hard as TiC, but it is suitable for the wear test.

Comments 8: The legend text is not visible. Please reproduce the images with better resolution and enlarge the legend font size.

Response 8: Noted with thanks. However, the images were adjusted for a better visibility.

Comments 9: The load of sliding wear should be selected not to produce such high deformation of the coating and substrate shown in Figures 6 & 8.

Response 9: Noted and appreciated. Thus, those loads were carefully selected with respect to the coated material for wear behavior analysis.

Comments 10: In Figure 9 (a,b), it is difficult to distinguish between the coating layer and the substrate. Please indicate both component using annotation or replace the images.

Response 10: Thanks for the comment. Those Figures only illustrate the photographic images of the coated film on the substrates and not to distinguish between the coated layer and the substrate.

Comments 11: Why did the authors not used same loads for both substrates, especially the coating materials is the same? This could produce better comparison in Figure 9 (e & f).

Response 11: Using the same load will not provide us with better results because our major area of interest is the coating material and not the substrate.

Comments 12: In Figure 9 (g) the stationary state of mild wear has been changed after 50s to severe wear. This severe wear should be given more time to see what is the next development.

Response 12: Thank you for this comment. We only have to observe the materials behavior for a minute (60s). However, the future study could look into more time for severe wear analysis.

Comments 13: Please include some values of key numerical results in the conclusion.

Response 13: Good suggestion. Some numerical results have been introduced into the conclusion section of the article, this can be found from lines 297 to 301.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Page number 8 is blank.

The numerical simulations do not reflect the subject of the article. The authors indicate in the simulation results a point imprint of the tool and do not present results for sliding wear along the plane of the specimen.

All relevant technological parameters, e.g. the speed of sliding of the tool along the sample, are not presented. 

Legends in the figures from computer simulations are illegible (small font).

The bibliography is poor. There are very many articles referring to the use of computer simulations in the context of supporting experimental research, e.g. DOI:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.474.339

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Thank you very much for taking your time to review this research article. Please, kindly find the detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1: Page number 8 is blank

Response 1: This page has been deleted.

Comments 2: The numerical simulations do not reflect the subject of the article. The authors indicate in the simulation results a point imprint of the tool and do not present results for sliding wear along the plane of the specimen.

Response 2: Thanks for your comment. But there were no results other than the stress distribution results which includes equivalent (von-mises) stress, maximum principal stress, and contact pressure, respectively for the coated materials.

Comments 3: All relevant technological parameters, e.g. the speed of sliding of the tool along the sample, are not presented.

Response 3: Thanks for this very important comment. However, the sliding speed used for the sliding wear operation was 4 mm/s, and as well as the sliding distance of 3 mm. This can be found in lines 27 and 28 of the abstract section.

Comments 4: Legends in the Figures from computer simulations are illegible (small font).

Response 4: Noted with thanks.

Comments 5: The bibliography is poor. There are very many articles referring to the use of computer simulations in the context of supporting experimental research, e.g. DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.474.339

Response 5: Acknowledged your comment with thanks.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All reviewer observations have been addressed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

All reviewer observations have been addressed.

Author Response

For research article

Second Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Thank you very much for taking your time to review this research article. Please, kindly find the detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Acknowledged all your comments with thanks.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have treated raised comments.

Accepted

Author Response

For research article

Second Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Thank you very much for taking your time to review this research article. Please, kindly find the detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Acknowledged all your comments with thanks.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did not address all previous comments. 

Author Response

For research article

Second Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Thank you very much for taking your time to review this research article. Please, kindly find the detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Comments 2: The numerical simulations do not reflect the subject of the article. The authors indicate in the simulation results a point imprint of the tool and do not present results for sliding wear along the plane of the specimen.

Response 2: Thanks for your comments. The finite element analysis (FEA) technique used for this article was fully discussed the “subject of the article” with respect to the sliding wear effect of coated thin film on metallic materials. The numerical simulation method of various materials was also mentioned in the introduction section of the article. However, the sliding wear results of the tool traveled along the surface of the specimen to create a wear track were presented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. In addition, the results obtained include the pre-processing (such as meshing), and post-processing of the numerical simulation.

Comment 4: Legends in the Figures from computer simulations are illegible (small font).

Response 4: Noted with thanks. Legends’ font size is fixed from the embedded Ansys software solver, and can’t be adjusted due to the fact that the simulation process was designed for that font size.

Comments 5: The bibliography is poor. There are very many articles referring to the use of computer simulations in the context of supporting experimental research, e.g. DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.474.339

Response 5: Acknowledged your comments with thanks. The authors’ guide was carefully adhered to for the referencing of this article, and it has been rectified for any missing names. However, the link to the article in your comments was checked, and it was totally out of the scope of my research study.

Therefore, thank you very much for your invaluable comments, much appreciated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Font settings in Ansys can be modified. The values indicated in the legends are very important. Please modify the drawings. Without visible values, colorful drawings themselves lose their meaning.

Author Response

For research article

Third Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Thank you very much for taking your time to review this research article. Please, kindly find the detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Comments: Font settings in Ansys can be modified. The values indicated in the legends are very important. Please, modify the drawings. Without visible values, colorful drawings themselves lose their meaning.

Response: Thank you very much for your great concern about the font. However, font settings in Ansys are not as important as the quality of the simulation’s results. In addition to that, the values in the legends are very important, but it could be of a moderate font size as embedded in the software for any type of process to be performed.

Therefore, the most important values in the legends are the maximum and minimum values, and which have been clearly given in the tables 2 and 3 for clarification.

Finally, these are not drawings, but postprocessing and simulation results of the sliding wear process. Kindly ignore the colorful drawings, these are just simulation results.

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf