Research of Resistance of Selected Materials to Abrasive Wear to Increase the Ploughshare Lifetime
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper investigate the abrasive wear resistance of selected materials (include bulk and hardfacing materials) in order to increase the ploughshare lifetime. The results are clear and helpful to the engineering community. There are some comments to improve the scientific contribution of the manuscript:
(1) Please investigate the hardness-dependent wear resistance of the present five sample. It has been reported years ago that the abrasive wear property strongly relies on the hardness.
(2) The 37MnSi5 sample has a martensite structure with a carbon content of about 0.37%. The OK84.58 contains 0.67% carbon with extra high Cr content. These two samples have similar hardness and thus almost the same wear resistance. The OK84.58 can be better after properly tailoring its microstructure.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank You very much for Your valuable comments. We received them with great respect. We also would like to thank You for the possibility to make the improvements. We appreciate it very much!
All changes to the article are highlighted in these colours:
- Red colour – new text was added/improved based on the comments and recommendations of the Reviewers;
- Green colour – The English language improvements.
This paper investigate the abrasive wear resistance of selected materials (include bulk and hardfacing materials) in order to increase the ploughshare lifetime. The results are clear and helpful to the engineering community. There are some comments to improve the scientific contribution of the manuscript:
Point 1: Please investigate the hardness-dependent wear resistance of the present five sample. It has been reported years ago that the abrasive wear property strongly relies on the hardness.
Response 1: Thank You for Your comment. We agree and additional text has been added to the manuscript to emphasize this (in the current version, lines 488 - 494):
“Based on the results, we can state that the hardness of the material strongly correlates with the resistance to abrasive wear. The hardness of HARDOX 450 was almost 2.5 times higher than S355J2G3. The relative abrasion resistance was almost twice as high for HARDOX 450 as for S355J2G3. The hardness and relative abrasion resistance of the 37MnSi5 material and the OK 84.58 hardfacing material were almost the same. Compared to the 37MnSi5 material, the UTP 690 material achieved higher hardness and higher resistance to abrasive wear.”
Point 2: The 37MnSi5 sample has a martensite structure with a carbon content of about 0.37%. The OK84.58 contains 0.67% carbon with extra high Cr content. These two samples have similar hardness and thus almost the same wear resistance. The OK84.58 can be better after properly tailoring its microstructure.
Response 2: Thank You for Your comment. As our research is extensive and we are still trying to improve the properties of materials, we will consider such a solution in future research.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a piece of practical work to identify suitable materials to resist abrasive wear in ploughshare. To merit publication, some re-writing is necessary, as suggested below:
(1) Introduction: The paragraphs starting from Line 49 to Line 87 are not necessary in a technical paper. These are textbook knowledge well-known to readers in this field.
(2) There are 2 repeated Table 1 in the manuscript. Tables numbers are mixed up somehow in the text. Please check the consistency.
(3) It is not necessary to present the statistical analysis unless many tests are conducted under each conditions. Thus, Lines 300 to 343 are not necessary.
(4) Line 354: Fig 10 seems to be Fig. 11.
(5) Micrographs in Fig. 10 to 14: You only need the SEM images to show the microstructures. It is not necessary in include optical microscopic images.
(6) Fig. 15 repeats the results shown in Table 8. Can remove it.
(7) Fig. 17 does not make sense. It is weight loss that makes sense.
(8) Fig. 18 repeats the results in Table 10.
(9) Section 3.4. Evaluation: this is not necessary. The statistics can be clearly seen from the presented experimental results.
(10) Authors may provide some indication regarding the practical implementation of the recommended materials in applications.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank You very much for Your valuable comments. We received them with great respect. We also would like to thank You for the possibility of making the improvements. We appreciate it very much!
All changes to the article are highlighted in these colours:
- Red colour – new text was added/improved based on the comments and recommendations of the Reviewers;
- Green colour – The English language improvements.
This is a piece of practical work to identify suitable materials to resist abrasive wear in ploughshare. To merit publication, some re-writing is necessary, as suggested below:
Point 1: Introduction: The paragraphs starting from Line 49 to Line 87 are not necessary in a technical paper. These are textbook knowledge well-known to readers in this field.
Response 1: Thank You for Your comment; we really appreciate Your opinion. However, we consider it justified to keep lines 49 to 87 in the introductory section, as this is an overview of the current state of the art and the basic research that has already been done on the subject. This section not only provides the reader with basic information about the problem but also provided us with information so that we can declare both the novelty of our presented study and our contribution to the issue.
Point 2: There are 2 repeated Table 1 in the manuscript. Tables numbers are mixed up somehow in the text. Please check the consistency.
Response 2: Thank You for Your comment, but we're not sure we understood it correctly. We did not find 2 repeated Table 1 in the manuscript. If it was thought that there were two references to Table 1 in the manuscript, then it was corrected in the manuscript as follows (lines 117 – 122):
“The basic dimensions of the currently used steel raking blades and their geometry, which are symmetrically placed in the shape of an arrow on the front part of the tractors, are shown in Fig. 2. Values of these basic dimensions, declared by the manufacturer [23], are listed in Table 1.
Figure 2. Basic dimension of steel raking blade”
The entire manuscript has been checked, and errors in the Figures and Tables markings have been corrected.
Point 3: It is not necessary to present the statistical analysis unless many tests are conducted under each condition. Thus, Lines 300 to 343 are not necessary.
Response 3: Thank You for Your comment. This part of the manuscript has been shortened and is on lines 282 – 300.
Point 4: Line 354: Fig 10 seems to be Fig. 11.
Point 5: Micrographs in Fig. 10 to 14: You only need the SEM images to show the microstructures. It is not necessary in include optical microscopic images.
Response 4 and 5: Thank You for Your comment. It was corrected in the manuscript as follows (see lines 303 - 342):
“Individual materials were analyzed in terms of microstructure in the initial phase of the research. Fig. 9a shows the microstructure of the standard material of 37MnSi5. The samples were etched in a solution of HNO3 in ethyl alcohol – 2 % Nital. The microstructure of the material was predominantly sorbitol, referring to the fact that the raking blade was heat treated - hardened and then tempered at a high temperature.
Fig. 9b shows the microstructure of S350J2G3 material. A ferritic-pearlitic structure was observed, with a predominance of ferrite, corresponding to the type of microstructure of structural low carbon steels. 2 % Nital was used as an etchant. This part of the plough-share is not directly exposed to abrasion in contact with the road. It is a supporting part for the raking blade connected to the base material by a weld. However, with a larger amount of material to be cleaned, this part also comes into contact with the abrasive particles but with a lower degree of attack on its surface and is thus exposed to an abrasive load. The ferritic-pearlitic structure is characterized by a low degree of abrasive resistance. This was the reason for the idea of replacing such a weldment with one unit made of abrasion-resistant material.
Fig. 9c shows the microstructure of HARDOX 450 material. The sample was etched with Cor etchant (120 ml CH3COOH, 20 ml HCl, 3 g picric acid, 144 ml CH3OH). The fine-grained structure corresponds to the state after heat treatment - hardening and tempering, which is stated and declared by the manufacturer in his technical sheet [27].
Fig. 9d shows the microstructure of OK 84.58 hardfacing coating. The samples were also etched with Cor etchant. The microstructure corresponds to the chemical composition with high Cr and medium C content. These elements create a precondition for the formation of carbides and intermediate phases, hardening the softer ferritic matrix. This increases the hardness and partly also the abrasion resistance while maintaining the good toughness of the material.
Fig. 9e shows the microstructure of UTP 690 hardfacing coating. Samples were also etched with Cor etchant. The microstructure of UTP 690 material is very similar to the microstructure of OK 84.58 material. The hardfacing material UTP 690, with its chemical composition represented by Cr and W, increases wear resistance and hardness. The ele-ments V and W refinement the grain, which also promotes the abrasion resistance of the material where V increases the toughness needed to balance the increased hardness with carbides C, Cr and W. Compared to OK 84.58 hardfacing material, we can observe a nee-dle-like structure in the UTP 690 hardfacing material, which could better transfer the loads that act on it and thus it is a premise for better resistance to abrasive wear.
Microstructure analyzes confirmed that the choice of hardfacing materials, which due to their chemical composition, create different and more suitable structures than the analyzed structures of the original ploughshare materials, was correct. This creates the premise of better abrasion resistance and impact resistance on the ploughshare.
Response 6: Thank You for Your comment, and we agree with it. Therefore, Fig. 15 has been removed from the manuscript. We just wanted to graphically show the differences in hardness values ​​to make it easier for the reader.
Point 7: Fig. 17 does not make sense. It is weight loss that makes sense.
Response 7: Thank You for Your comment, and we agree with Your statement. Therefore, Fig. 17 has been removed from the manuscript.
Point 8: Fig. 18 repeats the results in Table 10.
Response 8: Thank You for Your comment. We agree with Your opinion. Fig. 18 has also been removed from the manuscript, similar to Fig. 15. The authors just wanted to graphically show the differences in the values of the hardness coefficients in order to make it clearer and more visible to the reader.
Point 9: Section 3.4. Evaluation: this is not necessary. The statistics can be clearly seen from the presented experimental results.
Response 9: Thank You for Your comment. This section has been edited, and it is on lines 423 to 439.
“Fig. 11 shows the box plots with 95 % confidence intervals. In the first case (Fig. 11a), the weight loss values of S355J2G3 and HARDOX 450 materials were compared. It can be stated from the graph that the average values of weight loss of S355J2G3 and HARDOX 450 materials are not the same. Based on these results, it can be assumed that HARDOX 450 material will have better resistance to abrasive wear.
In the second case (Fig. 11b), the values of weight loss of 37MnSi5 material and OK 84.58 hardfacing material were compared. Based on the graph, it can be stated that the average values of weight loss of 37MnSi5 material and OK 84.58 hardfacing material are almost the same, and thus hardfacing with such an hardfacing material on the exposed parts of the ploughshare will not significantly increase the lifetime.
In the third case, the values of mass losses of the 37MnSi5 material and UTP 690 hardfacing material were compared (Fig. 11c). A comparison of the graphs clearly shows that the average values of weight loss of 37MnSi5 material and UTP 690 hardfacing mate-rial that UTP 690 hardfacing material will have better resistance to abrasive wear.
Figure 11. Box charts; (a) weight loss of S355J2G3 and HARDOX 450 materials; (b) weight loss of 37MnSi5 material and OK 84.58 hardfacing material; (c) weight loss of 37MnSi5 material and UTP 690 hardfacing material.”
Point 10: Authors may provide some indication regarding the practical implementation of the recommended materials in applications.
Response 10: Thank You for Your comment. The use of each of the recommended materials can be found on lines 181 to 223.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript should be rewritten and after this, it may be reconsidered.
Add SEM images with a bigger magnification of sample materials, not electrodes!
Each material should be tested using at least 3 samples. This was not done.
Use weight loss as a diagnostic parameter of wear resistance. The better - is to use volume loss, as well as materials have different densities (what was the density of materials?)
Too broad explanations, especially in "materials' section. It may be shortened.
English style should be upgraded
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank You very much for Your valuable comments. We received them with great respect. We also would like to thank You for the possibility to make the improvements. We appreciate it very much!
We have tried to incorporate the answers to all Your comments into our manuscript, including comments from the PDF. Only the ones we consider to be the most important are listed here.
All changes to the article are highlighted in these colours:
- Red colour – new text was added/improved based on the comments and recommendations of the Reviewers;
- Green colour – The English language improvements.
The manuscript should be rewritten and after this, it may be reconsidered.
Point 1: Add SEM images with a bigger magnification of sample materials, not electrodes! (Comment from PDF - In this part, please, give the microstructure of test samples. There is no any need to study the microstructure of electrode).
Response1: Thank You for Your comment. Chapter 3.1 describes the microstructures of ploughshare materials (37MnSi5, S355J2G3), HARDOX 450 and hardfacing materials OK 84.58 and UTP 690. The microstructure of the hardfacing materials is important for comparing the structures with the original ploughshare materials. Therefore, in our opinion, it is justified to keep the microstructure of hardfacing materials. SEM images have been changed; they are in Fig. 9.
Point 2: Each material should be tested using at least 3 samples. This was not done.
Response 2: Thank You for Your comment and we fully agree with it. This fact was not clearly written anywhere in the manuscript. Three samples were used for the test of each material and only the average values ​​from these 3 samples for each material were written in the manuscript. We edited it in the manuscript as follows (lines 259, and 384).
Point 3: Use weight loss as a diagnostic parameter of wear resistance. The better - is to use volume loss, as well as materials have different densities (what was the density of materials?)
Response 3: Thank You for Your comment. Let us explain to You our approach to the presented research:
Weight loss is used as a diagnostic parameter in this GOST 23.208-79 standard, which is still valid and used. We have found that GOST 23.208-79 standard has been used in many investigations, e.g.
- Krylova, T. A., et al., Corrosion and Wear Resistance of Coatings Produced by Nonvacuum Electron Beam Cladding of Refractory Carbides on Low-Carbon Steel. Inorganic Materials, 2020, 56, 328-332.
- Student, Ðœ. Ðœ., Pokhmurs’ka, H. V., Zadorozhna, K. R. Structure and wear resistance of VC–FeCr and VC–FeCrСо coatings obtained by supersonic flame spraying. Materials Science, 2018, 54, 22-29.
- Falat, L., et al., Microstructure and abrasive wear resistance of various alloy hardfacings for application on heavy-duty chipper tools in forestry shredding and mulching operations. Materials, 2019, 12, 2212.
- Müller, M., Rudawska, A., Tichý, M., KoláÅ™, V., Hromasová, M. Research on Wear Resistance of Polymeric Composite Materials Based on Micro-particles from Tyre Recyclation Process. Manufacturing Technology, 2020, 20, 223-228.
We were inspired by these studies and since it is easier for us to evaluate weight loss, we used the GOST 23.208-79 standard in our experiments. We know the ASTM G65 standard, but in this case, we cannot replace it with GOST 23.208-79. The standards have different measurement conditions. For this reason, we consider it justified to keep this standard GOST 23.208-79 in the manuscript. As research is comprehensive, we will consider using other standards in the future.
Point 4: Too broad explanations, especially in "materials' section. It may be shortened.
Response 4: The section in the article dealing with materials has been shortened.
Point 5: English style should be upgraded.
Response 5: The manuscript has undergone extensive English editing with many modifications made by a native speaker. Sentences throughout the manuscript have been reworded and technical terms have been improved.
Point 6 (comment from PDF): Abstract editing.
Response 6: Thank You for Your comment. The abstract has been modified.
In our defense, we would like only modestly to note that it is not possible to cover everything in the abstract. The reader will find all other relevant information in the article.
Point 7 (comment from PDF): How this was tested? Please, present the methodology and results.
Response 7: Thank You for Your comment. This information (lines 218 - 221) is given and declared by the producer (Reference [31]) as well as can be found in the data sheet. As this is the producer's intellectual property, so we were unable to find out a methodology or test.
Point 8 (comment from PDF): Give here its composition, as well as You did for Nital solution.
Response 8: Thank You for Your comment. The composition of the Cor etchant is described above for HARDOX 450 (line 319) as well as in section 2.3. Evaluation methods (lines 280 -281).
Point 9 (comment from PDF): Vickers and Rockwell hardness - For what purpose?
Response 9: Thank You for Your comment. The answer has been added to the manuscript (lines 353 – 355):
“Vickers hardness was used because it is more sensitive to small differences in material hardness. Rockwell hardness was used to better compare harder hardfacing materials.”
Point 10 (comment from PDF): What is the idea to have the same data as on Fig. 19 once again?
Response 10: Thank You for Your comment. Based on Your opinion and the opinion of another reviewer, we deleted from the manuscript Fig. 19, and we left the statistical evaluation.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The first two tables in the manuscript are labelled as Table 1. The second table should be labelled as Table 2.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank You very much for Your valuable comments. We received them with great respect. We also would like to thank You for the possibility of making the improvements. We appreciate it very much!
All changes in the article are highlighted in green.
This is a piece of practical work to identify suitable materials to resist abrasive wear in ploughshare. To merit publication, some re-writing is necessary, as suggested below:
Point 1: The first two tables in the manuscript are labelled as Table 1. The second table should be labelled as Table 2.
Response 1: Thank You for Your comment. The tables in the “MS Word” file were marked correctly. The mistake only occurred when converting to a PDF file. Table numbers/labels have been corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors!
Thank You for the job done! Now the manuscript is much better, but it still must be improved, especially in English grammar and style.
Best regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank You very much for Your valuable comments. We received them with great respect. We also would like to thank You for the possibility to make the improvements. We appreciate it very much!
All changes in the article are highlighted in green.
Comments from PDF document:
Point 1: Weight losses are better compared directly, with no necessity to use parametric methods.
Response 1: Thank You for Your comment. The sentence has been changed (lines 27 - 28).
Point 2: Tensile strength is marked by "sigma", not by R. Please, correct.
Response 3: Thank YOU very much for the note.
Stress is generally indicated by the symbol "sigma", but specific stress values such as yield strength and tensile strength can be indicated by the symbols Rm and Re, as defined, e.g. by ISO ISO 6892 -1: 2016 (E).
Point 3: Why do You use Mohs hardness? It is better to use more unified hardness, like HRC or HV.
Response 3: Thank You for Your comment. The Mohs scale was removed from the previous section and replaced with the hardness of HRC and HV (lines 229-230) already in the first round of responses to reviewers' comments. We forgot to delete it here. We apologize for this, it's our fault.
Point 4: The quality of the figure should be improved. Especially numbers and letters (Fig. 7).
Response 4: Thank You for Your comment. The figure has been modified (line 250).
Point 5: Here You have sigma. It is correct. But earlier in the text it was designated as R. Please, correct.
Response 6: Thank You for Your comment. In this case, “sigma” means variance of material weight loss values. The mark of values variance is from the literature [34, 35]:
- Schmidtova, J.; Vacek, V. Applied statistics; TU in Zvolen: Zvolen, Slovakia, 2013; pp. 85-102
- Markechova, D.; Tirbakova, A.; Stehlikova, B. A basis of statistics for Fundamentals of statistics for teachers; Faculty of Natural Sciences UKF: Nitra, Slovensko, 2011; pp. 115-154
Point 6: Is this wear track? (Fig. 10)
Response 6: Thank You for Your comment. The figure has been modified, line 373.
All other improvements made based on YOUR comments have been incorporated directly into the manuscript and are marked in green. THANK YOU for all of them!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
