Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Influence of Applied Load and Sliding Distance on Wear Performances of AlSi7Mg0.6 Aluminum Alloy

Comments to Authors

1. What is the actual sliding distance? 0.5 mm, 1.5 mm and 3 mm is the minimal sliding distance, and it will contribute to wear. The sliding distance mentioned in the manuscript must be the amplitude of the sliding distance.

2. Page 2, line 48: what does " passe " mean here?

3. If pantographs impact the steady clams and result in rolling and sliding of the positioning hook around the positioning, why do authors not consider rolling wear?

4. Page 4, line 156: “ In previous studies” Please don’t write factual information; kindly provide suitable citations for clarity.

5. Kindly improve the quality of Figure 4.

6. Page 9: The SEM images of only 3 mm sliding distance and 20 N and 200N applied load are presented. What about other combinations of load and sliding distance?

7. In simulation: What was the shape and size of the elements? Have they had authors do grid-independent tests?

 

Seem ok 

Author Response

Responses to comments are seen in the attachments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Influence of applied load and sliding distance on wear performances of AlSi7Mg0.6 Aluminum Alloy” by Haibo Zhang et al. discusses the influence of applied load and sliding distance on tribological performance of aluminium alloy with the view of application in high-speed railways. Their findings suggest that it is important to establish a proper tension force in catenary system to ensure the rolling contact instead of sliding one, thus extending the service lifetime for high-speed railways.

Overall, authors used correct approach selecting experiments and FEA. Chosen methods compliment results and discussion. Manuscript can be accepted after minor language corrections:

1.       Line 48: at the end of the row, the word “passe” should be “pass”.

2.       Lines 192 – 195: description of the change in coefficient of friction, authors are using unacceptable words like “finally”, and especially “faintly”. This is a technical paper and description must be measurable, like describes in the following sentence. “Faintly” is incorrect word to be used in technical paper.

Please see comments above there are just few lines that need to be adressed.

Author Response

Responses to comments are seen in the attachments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract. 
This part should be modified. The Authors should pose the problem and then the method of solving it and the main results/conclusions.

Introduction.
Please do not use combined references, e.g. "Most previous studies concern on the tensile [8-11] and fatigue properties [12-15] of AlSi7Mg0.6". Each reference should contain a commentary. Please check and correct this paragraph in this respect.

Materials and Methods. 
Section 2.3. The figures in the section "Results and Discussions" show a surface map and an axonometric image. How were these images obtained?

The Authors should provide the methodology of surface topography measurements (lens, analysis field, method of filling in unmeasured points, filters used). Similar note for SEM measurements.

Results and Discussions. 
Figures 5-9. How many measurements (repetitions) were made during this research ?

Figures 5-8. The scale on surface maps and axonometric images should be cantered to indicate the reference plane and characteristic of pits.

The scale on the vertical axis of the profiles should be the same for all studies/samples to visually show the difference.

Moreover, please write and mark where was the profile measured? This is not shown on the surface map or on the axonometric image.

Figure 10. Please indicate the characteristic features in the photos (SEM).

Conclusions. 
This paragraph should be supplemented after the corrections made in the previous paragraphs.

Author Response

Responses to comments are seen in the attachments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In the paper "Influence of Applied Load and Sliding Distance on Wear Performances of AlSi7Mg0.6 Aluminum Alloy" the wear resistance of the AlSi7Mg0.6 was investigated. The authors have shown that the wear increases with increases of sliding distances and applied load. The authors have made a good experimental work and approved the results by the FE simulation. The paper may be accepted after the correction accordingly following comments:

1.                  At the last time, the aluminum-based composites are more preferable for the application where wear resistance is needed. The authors should compare their results with wear resistance of composites (please see, for example works of Shalaby, E.A.M. et al).

2.                  The composition in Table 1 does not correspond to AlSi7Mg0.6 alloy. It is recommended to check silicon content.

3.                  The initial microstructure of the investigated alloy should be given in the manuscript.

4.                  The comparison between experimental results and the FE simulation should be added to Figure 15.

5.                  It is unclear, why without load the wear depth is higher than under load (Figure 15b,c). However, conclusion #1 gives opposite statement. The additional information is needed.

Author Response

Responses to comments are seen in the attachments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I do not have more comments. Thank you.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have answered previous comments and improved the manuscript. The paper may be accepted for publication.