Influence of Tribolayer on Rolling Bearing Fatigue Performed on an FE8 Test Rig—A Follow-up
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors presented an in-depth experimental analysis of the rolling bering fatigue with different lubricant and operating conditions. It would be more insteresting if the following suggestions are considered.
1. Please describe more about your own work and results in the abstract, and streamline the importance and necessity of the present work.
2. It would be better to describe briefly the arrangement and context of the paper at the end of Section 1.
3. Please discuss and analyse more about the demerits of the exsiting research on rolling bearing fatigue and the creativity/novelty of the presented work (where can we distinguish the presented work from the exsiting research).
4. Some of the figures are blurry.
5. The format of the text needs to be modified.
Author Response
- Please describe more about your own work and results in the abstract and streamline the importance and necessity of the present work.
answer: The Abstract is already released so we are not allowed/accepted to change the wording. We adding a “storyboard” at the end of chapter one.
- It would be better to describe briefly the arrangement and context of the paper at the end of Section 1.
answer: Thank you for this advice, we do so.
- Please discuss and analyse more about the demerits of the exsiting research on rolling bearing fatigue and the creativity/novelty of the presented work (where can we distinguish the presented work from the exsiting research).
answer: We add some sentences at the end of chapter Discussion. And add a chapter conclusions to make it more visible.
- Some of the figures are blurry.
answer: Which ones? We will improve the graphics to 150 dpi.
- The format of the text needs to be modified.
answer: Checked, confirms to requirements of MDPI template. Please advice if you would find some more failure.
Reviewer 2 Report
In general, the paper is a review & research article simultaneously. May be, it would be better if the authors will transform their paper into two: a review & a research article. The discussion of results is relatively weak. A Conclusions part may be useful to increase the clearness of authors' main ideas for readers.
Also, I have some particular remarks for authors to increase the article quality.
1. The aim of the study may be formulated more properly. The aim must be a consequence from the current study state analysis made in the Introduction.
2. The references to many sources without their specific discussion are not suitable (for example, line 84 & 429).
3. It would be useful if literature dedicated to the problem of SIF formation will be analyzed in the Introduction.
4. It may be better if the Methods part would be structured by division on more than two subparts as now. The materials used in the research are not described properly.
5. It would be better if all abbreviations are disclosed (for example, the “H-loading” in line 496).
6. The References part needs in serious correction of technical flaws. The references must satisfy to requirements of the MDPI standards.
Author Response
- The aim of the study may be formulated more properly. The aim must be a consequence from the current study state analysis made in the Introduction.
answer: Thank you for this hint. Yes, we are too much focused in details. We add some clarifying sentenced at end of chapter 1. In addition we add a conclusion.
- The references to many sources without their specific discussion are not suitable (for example, line 84 & 429).
answer: Changed in text, the references are acted in a specific way this is the meaning of the text. We try to bring it out better through the choice of words. (see new version)
- It would be useful if literature dedicated to the problem of SIF formation will be analyzed in the Introduction.
answer: We add this aspect to the FE8-chapter including references. In our opinion there is not always a clear dividing between the different failure modes. i.e. other pitting tests the visible failure area has to be judged the failure mode itself will not be in focus. Surly the failure modes on FE8-pitting testing are worth to reported in an own article. At the paper here it was more a side effect because the aim was to identify WEC-critical tribo-films by industry typical relatively cheap methods. We think this is quite interesting for lubricant and bearing industry. In this paper the chemical composition of the tribo-film was in focus.
- It may be better if the Methods part would be structured by division on more than two subparts as now. The materials used in the research are not described properly.
answer: Yes we see this point too. We add subchapters to the analysis. We add also the material description for the 81212 (100CR6 martensitic hardened and S1 stabilized). The lubricant formulations are well described, aren’t they? It is quite hard to hold the balance between open discussion and non-disclosure agreements.
5. It would be better if all abbreviations are disclosed (for example, the “H-loading” in line 496).
answer: We use the element letters regarding periodic system of elements which should be okay in a scientific magazine.
- The References part needs in serious correction of technical flaws. The references must satisfy to requirements of the MDPI standards.
answer: Yes, thank you for attentive reading -> we chanced regarding MDPI standards.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper seems to be interesting because it concerns the study of the Influence of tribolayer on rolling bearing fatigue performed. However, some minor corrections are required.
1. General attention:
There are many editorial mistakes in the paper, e.g. incorrect citations (lines 237, 246, 341, 346) and missing paragraphs (lines 283). It is recommended to re-read the entire article and make corrections.
2. Some additional information related to the experimental method should be added. FE8 test rig has been developed by the Author? Please add more information about the test series used in the paper. Are the results of the Authors' previous research?
3. Surface Analysis Techniques
Did the authors not think about surface roughness analysis?
4. Figure 4
Please add in figure 4b axis decryption.
5. Figure 7
Please replace commas with dots on the axis description.
6. In the paper there isn’t a conclusion section. Please add it.
Author Response
- General attention:
There are many editorial mistakes in the paper, e.g. incorrect citations (lines 237, 246, 341, 346) and missing paragraphs (lines 283). It is recommended to re-read the entire article and make corrections.
answer: Thank you for the attending reading. We have changed this.
- Some additional information related to the experimental method should be added. FE8 test rig has been developed by the Author? Please add more information about the test series used in the paper. Are the results of the Authors' previous research?
answer: We add some clarifying sentences at chapter FE8. The test stages / test sets FE8-25 and FE8-32 were developed/adapted by Daniel Merk, one of the authors, this is correct. Why exactly this testing parameter were used for specific oils are surly worth to report in a separate publication. Thank for the advice, we will push this theme.
- Surface Analysis Techniques
Did the authors not think about surface roughness analysis?
answer: Yes, we do. Aim of the paper here is to describe the chemical composition of the surfaces. The results of the surface roughness measurement were much less conclusive than those discussed here. The focus here is on “chemical composition detected by fast and simple widely available methods” We add this hint to Chapter 1.
- Figure 4 Please add in figure 4b axis decryption.
answer: Yes, we add to description. It is a false color element display. It is a element distribution (intensity) from 0 to 100 (maximum) normalized to a color scale. The real values are in figure 7.
- Figure 7 Please replace commas with dots on the axis description.
answer: Thank you for the advice – done.
- In the paper there isn’t a conclusion section. Please add it.
answer: It was not necessary regarding MDPI rules but yes we see this point too. – done
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been modified properly.
Reviewer 2 Report
I think that the parer can be published in present form.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for answers.
