Influence of Abrasive Wear on Reliability and Maintainability of Components in Quarry Technological Equipment: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents an analysis of abrasive wear in quarry equipment and its impact on reliability and maintainability. The study provides useful insights for improving equipment performance and reducing downtime. However, there are several issues related to formatting, language clarity, methodology, and analysis that require revision. Below are detailed comments for improvement：

1. In the abstract, "Two-years" should be "two-year" as it is a compound adjective."
2. Clearly state the shortcomings of existing research on wear and reliability in the introduction. Additionally, explain how this study fills this gap, such as by incorporating field data analysis and introducing new material testing. In addition, there is a lack of relevant references, such as “D Gu, H Liu, X Gao, et al. 2021 Influence of cyclic wetting-drying on the shear strength of limestone with a soft interlayer. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. 54:4369–” “S Lin, L Wan, W Zhang, et al. Cross-scale quantitative and qualitative study of grotto sandstone under salt weathering. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-024-04130-y”.
3. The paper proposes Hardox 400 steel and Pucest panels as improved materials, but it lacks a detailed material comparison. It only provides wear test data without considering engineering factors such as cost, machinability, and service life. It is recommended to supplement these aspects.
4. The paper employs different reliability models to analyze the data but does not provide a detailed explanation of why certain models were chosen. It is recommended to include a more comprehensive rationale for model selection and add a comparison of the goodness-of-fit for each distribution.
5. The results of the wear tests in the paper are primarily presented through tabular data, but they lack statistical analysis to demonstrate the significance of different factors on wear. It is recommended to conduct appropriate statistical tests to confirm the significance of the experimental results and avoid relying solely on descriptive data.
6. The paper provides extensive explanations of reliability and maintainability analysis methods but includes limited literature review in the relevant field, lacking a comparative analysis of similar studies. It is recommended to expand the review of recent literature, particularly on wear-resistant material optimization and mining equipment maintenance, to clearly highlight the novelty of this study.
7. The conclusion section could be more focused, emphasizing the key findings of the study and clearly stating the feasibility of the proposed improvements. The experimental methods section should be streamlined to highlight the key steps and variables while reducing redundant descriptions.
8. The title “The Influence of Abrasive Wear on the Reliability and Maintainability of Components in Quarry Technological Equipment: A Case Study” may be changed to “Influence of Abrasive Wear on Reliability and Maintainability of Components in Quarry Technological Equipment: A Case Study” .

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current manuscript investigates the influence of abrasive wear on the reliability and maintainability of components in quarry technological equipment. There are thorough measurements and analysis related to the applied case study. The manuscript is well organized and well written. However, there are some issues to be considered as follows:

- Figure 1 should indicate to more data by labelling the contents.

- Data in Table1 need to be re-organized to be more clear and readable.

- There should be an image scale to get the relative dimensions of samples presented in figures 4 and 5.

- The font size of the image presented in Figure 8 should be enlarged.

- Figures 10 and 11 should present a meaningful data.

- The standard deviation of the measured data should be reflected to the presented results.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article titled "The Influence of Abrasive Wear on the Reliability and Maintainability of Components in Quarry Technological Equipment: A Case Study" is not recommended for publication in its current form. Although the study provides interesting insights into the reliability and maintainability of quarry equipment components affected by abrasive wear, there are several critical issues that need to be resolved to enhance the scientific rigor and clarity of the research. All observations must be fully addressed before the manuscript can be reconsidered for review.

1. Lack of Methodology Detail:
   • Section 2 (Materials and Methods), Lines 105-114: The methodology section lacks a detailed explanation of how the study was conducted. Specifically, the selection criteria for mathematical and computational models of reliability and maintainability are not clearly explained. The rationale behind choosing certain models (e.g., Exponential, Weibull, Lognormal) should be justified with references.
   • Lines 109-113: The description of tribological testing regimes is too brief. A more comprehensive explanation of the testing parameters (load, rotation speed, and cycles) and how they were selected would enhance the reproducibility of the study.
2. Insufficient Justification of Material Selection:
   • Section 2.1 (Materials), Lines 114-122: The selection of materials for tribological tests, such as Hardox 400 steel and Pucest panel, is mentioned without sufficient justification. Provide a rationale for choosing these materials over others, supported by comparative data or literature references.
3. Inconsistent Presentation of Results:
   • Section 3 (Results), Lines 300-533: The presentation of results is fragmented across multiple subsections. For example, the reliability and maintainability indicators for different components are presented separately, making it difficult to compare the performance of each component. A more cohesive structure that integrates the results for each component would improve readability.
4. Statistical Analysis and Interpretation:
   • Section 3.1.1, Lines 305-322 and Section 3.1.2, Lines 352-372: While statistical indicators (e.g., reliability variation curves) are calculated, their interpretation is superficial. The implications of the lognormal and Weibull distribution findings are not thoroughly discussed. A more in-depth statistical analysis, including confidence intervals and significance testing, would strengthen the validity of the conclusions.
5. Lack of Comparative Analysis:
   • Section 4 (Discussion), Lines 505-532: The study presents wear and reliability data but does not compare them with industry standards or existing literature. Including a comparative analysis would enhance the credibility and relevance of the findings. This section should also discuss how the study’s results align or differ from previous research.
6. Inadequate Discussion on Practical Implications:
   • Section 4 (Discussion), Lines 505-532: The discussion mentions potential solutions (e.g., using Pucest panels or Hardox 400 steel) but fails to explore their practical implications, such as cost analysis, feasibility, and challenges in real-world implementation. A more comprehensive discussion of these aspects is needed to support industrial application.
7. Figures and Tables:
   • Figures 13-29 (Pages 14-22): Some figures are not clearly labeled or explained in the text, reducing their effectiveness in supporting the narrative. Ensure all figures and tables are referenced appropriately and discussed in the context of the findings. Additionally, the resolution of some figures is low, affecting readability.

In conclusion, I do not recommend the publication of this article in its current form. The issues identified significantly impact the validity, clarity, and credibility of the study. All observations must be fully addressed before the manuscript can be reconsidered for review. Once these are thoroughly revised, the manuscript may be reconsidered for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are several issues related to terminology consistency, sentence structure, grammar, and narrative flow affect the overall clarity and impact of the research. Addressing the following observations would enhance the readability and coherence of the paper.

Technical Terminology and Precision:

The use of technical terminology is generally appropriate but inconsistent. Terms related to tribology, reliability, and maintainability are sometimes used interchangeably without clear definitions. Standardizing terminology and providing clear definitions at first use would improve clarity.

Sentence Structure and Clarity:

Some sentences are overly complex and ambiguous. Shorter, more concise sentences would enhance readability. Additionally, excessive use of passive voice affects the flow of the narrative. Rephrasing to active voice where appropriate would improve the clarity of arguments.

Grammar and Syntax:

Minor grammatical errors, including improper article usage and verb tense inconsistencies, are present. Awkward phrasing in some sections affects the flow. A thorough grammatical review is recommended to polish the language.

Flow and Coherence:

Transitions between sections are abrupt, particularly between the results and discussion. A bridging paragraph summarizing the key findings before moving into the discussion would improve logical flow and coherence.

Abstract and Conclusion:

While the abstract and conclusion sections are well-written, they would benefit from more explicit connections between the research objectives, methods, results, and implications. The conclusion should detail how the findings were validated and explain their practical implications for industrial applications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Observations on the Manuscript

After reviewing this revised version of the manuscript, I noticed that while some adjustments have been made, there are still significant issues regarding methodological justification, statistical analysis, and results presentation. Below, I outline the key areas that require further improvement before the manuscript can be reconsidered for publication.

1. Methodological Deficiencies

Selection of Statistical Models (Section 2.2, Lines 187-266)

The justification for using Weibull, lognormal, and exponential distributions remains weak. While these models are mentioned, no statistical validation is provided to support their selection. A more rigorous approach is necessary:

• Perform goodness-of-fit tests, such as Kolmogorov-Smirnov or Anderson-Darling, to demonstrate that these distributions are the most suitable for modeling the reliability of the analyzed components.
• Compare these models with alternative distributions and provide evidence to verify their accuracy.

Tribological Testing Parameters (Section 2.1, Lines 121-136)

The selected tribological testing parameters (load, rotation speed, number of cycles) are not sufficiently justified. The authors mention they were chosen based on rock properties, but no prior experimental data or references are provided to support this decision.

• The study should explain why these specific values were selected instead of others.
• Cite relevant literature or provide preliminary test data to justify the choice of parameters.

2. Insufficient Data Analysis and Statistical Interpretation

Reliability Curves Interpretation (Section 3.1, Lines 307-426)

The reliability curves presented in Figures 13, 19, and 25 lack detailed interpretation. The authors state that reliability decreases over time, which is expected, but there is no deeper discussion on what these results imply in practical terms.

• Explain how these reliability values can be used for decision-making in maintenance planning.
• Include confidence intervals and statistical significance tests to reinforce the reliability of the results.
• Discuss the practical implications of the obtained reliability values.

Comparison with Existing Literature (Section 4, Lines 505-532)

One of the issues raised in the previous review was the lack of comparison to prior studies. In this revised version, a comparative analysis with existing literature is still missing, which is crucial to evaluate the relevance and originality of the work.

• Compare the obtained wear rates, reliability indicators, and material performance with previous studies in the field.
• Discuss whether the findings align or differ from reported research and provide explanations for any discrepancies.

Economic Feasibility Analysis (Section 4, Lines 505-532)

In the response to reviewers, it is stated that cost-effectiveness should be evaluated. However, no cost analysis has been included in the manuscript. To justify the selection of alternative materials such as Hardox 400 and Pucest panels, the study should include:

• An estimated cost per replacement for each material.
• An analysis of downtime costs associated with each alternative.
• A basic cost-benefit analysis to determine the financial feasibility of the proposed solutions.

3. Problems with Presentation of Results

Fragmented Structure of Results (Section 3, Lines 306-533)

The way the results are presented makes it difficult to compare the findings between different components. Currently, the failure rate data, material performance, and reliability indicators are presented in a fragmented manner, making the analysis less clear.

• Consider consolidating tables to present comparative reliability/maintainability data more effectively.
• Use side-by-side graphs to illustrate the differences between the analyzed components.

Figures and Tables (Figures 13-29, Pages 14-22)

Although some figures' resolution has been improved, there are still issues in how graphical data is presented:

• Some figures are not properly referenced in the text, making their interpretation difficult.
• Some graphs display redundant information, but there is no structured analysis of the results.
• It is recommended to improve titles, labels, and figure descriptions to make them clearer and more informative.

While some improvements have been made, there are still critical issues that have not been adequately addressed. To be reconsidered for publication, the manuscript must:

1. Justify and validate the selected statistical models by performing appropriate goodness-of-fit tests.
2. Improve the interpretation of reliability data, incorporating confidence intervals and statistical significance tests.
3. Include a comparative analysis with previous studies, positioning the results within the context of existing research.
4. Add an economic feasibility analysis to justify the selection of alternative materials.
5. Optimize the organization and presentation of results, using comparative tables and more effective graphs.
6. Conduct a thorough English language review to enhance clarity and coherence.

Unless these issues are fully addressed, I do not recommend reconsidering the manuscript for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript contains multiple long and complex sentences, excessive use of passive voice, and some grammatical errors. A professional language review is strongly recommended to improve readability.

Coherence and Logical Transitions

Transitions between sections remain abrupt. The study lacks a clear introduction to the results, explaining what they aim to demonstrate and how they relate to the study’s motivation

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf