Study on the Anti-Friction Mechanism of Nitriding Surface Texture 304 Steel
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper “Study on the antifriction mechanism of nitriding surface texture 304 steel” presents a study the surface work function, the apparent contact angle and surface hardness of 304 steel before and after nitriding. In addition, the tribological properties of the compound modified surface was evaluated.
The introduction section establishes the problem analyzed and assesses the solutions proposed so far, making a detailed study of works previously published by other authors. The objectives of the work and the main methodologies used and results obtained are also included in this section.
The methodology used and the results obtained are clearly presented (see the considerations below), and the conclusions are precise and are based on the work carried out.
Regarding the rest of the paper, I would like to make the following considerations:
- Lines 96-97: The authors indicate that they have made six random measurements and the mean value obtained is taken. Has the error in the measurements and/or the dispersion of results been calculated?
- Line 104: “and and…” must be corrected
- Lines 106-108: Values are presented in m, cm and mm. Units should be standardized
- Line 110: What is the hardness of the ball?
- Line 148: Capital letter must be corrected
- Line 159-162: Why doesn't the 100 micron sample follow the trend? If three samples are compared, and one of them does not follow the trend of the other two, is it enough to speak of a trend? How has this conclusion been established?
- Line 257: The first sentence seems incomplete
- Line 257-269: This paragraph explains the methodology used to carry out the finite element analysis. The general explanation of the methodology should be incorporated into section two. In this section, only the process of choosing the parameters used should be maintained (these parameters are obtained based on the results obtained in other tests).
In my opinion, the paper can be published once the above comments are considered.
Author Response
The paper “Study on the antifriction mechanism of nitriding surface texture 304 steel” presents a study the surface work function, the apparent contact angle and surface hardness of 304 steel before and after nitriding. In addition, the tribological properties of the compound modified surface was evaluated.
The introduction section establishes the problem analyzed and assesses the solutions proposed so far, making a detailed study of works previously published by other authors. The objectives of the work and the main methodologies used and results obtained are also included in this section.
The methodology used and the results obtained are clearly presented (see the considerations below), and the conclusions are precise and are based on the work carried out.
Regarding the rest of the paper, I would like to make the following considerations:
- Lines 96-97: The authors indicate that they have made six random measurements and the mean value obtained is taken. Has the error in the measurements and/or the dispersion of results been calculated?
Answer：The error in the measurements and/or the dispersion of results have not been calculated，Because we did not think that the difference between the values was very large, we selected a relatively large number of points for measurement to calculate the average value.
- Line 104: “and and…” must be corrected
Answer：I have correct the above problem.
- Lines 106-108: Values are presented in m, cm and mm. Units should be standardized
Answer：The units have been standardized.
- Line 110: What is the hardness of the ball?
Answer：The hardness of HV1600.
- Line 148: Capital letter must be corrected
Answer：Capital letter has been corrected.
- Line 159-162: Why doesn't the 100 micron sample follow the trend? If three samples are compared, and one of them does not follow the trend of the other two, is it enough to speak of a trend? How has this conclusion been established?
Answer：I have correct the above problem.
- Line 257: The first sentence seems incomplete
Answer：I have correct the above problem.
- Line 257-269: This paragraph explains the methodology used to carry out the finite element analysis. The general explanation of the methodology should be incorporated into section two. In this section, only the process of choosing the parameters used should be maintained (these parameters are obtained based on the results obtained in other tests).
Answer：I have correct the above problem.
In my opinion, the paper can be published once the above comments are considered.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is supported by plenty of experiments. However, there are several questions:
-
The statement "flow of lubricating oil" in a sentence “The reason for this phenomenon is that there are relatively few abrasive particles under oil lubrication, and the abrasive particles can be taken away from the wear marks along with the flow of lubricating oil” (341-3) does not explain the lack of abrasive particles, because in this case there was no flow of oil that would transport the particles. What was the total volume of oil delivered to the friction area during the test (one drop oil per 300 seconds) ?.
-
The analysis of the paragraph does not lead to the statement given in the last sentence “But the oil storage effect of micro-texture can play a good tribological action” (336). What does a “good tribological action” consist in?
-
In the summary, I suggest adding a phrase: "at a lower speed" at the end of the following sentence: (19-20) "But the dynamic pressure of the oil in the micro texture did not play an obvious role in reducing friction".
-
Notes on editing the work
a) Table 1 (181) - no unit of the measured parameter.
b) Table 2 (245) – axis description “Wear marks width(μm)” and “Deepest depth of the wear marks(μm)” – no spaces before the bracket (μm).
c) Figure 5 and 6 –"contact angle" needs units (tables)
d) Figure 8 (220) - axe "Rool Times" needs unit [s].
e) Figure 14 (328) -axis description- no spaces between the axis description and the bracket with the parameter unit.
f) in many places, there is no space between words
g) line (54 i 56) - delete (2) i (3)
h) Standardize the description in the content of the publication - Figure or Fig. and Table or Tab.
Author Response
- The statement "flow of lubricating oil" in a sentence “The reason for this phenomenon is that there are relatively few abrasive particles under oil lubrication, and the abrasive particles can be taken away from the wear marks along with the flow of lubricating oil” (341-3) does not explain the lack of abrasive particles, because in this case there was no flow of oil that would transport the particles. What was the total volume of oil delivered to the friction area during the test(one drop oil per 300 seconds) ?.
Answer: The average drop of lubricating oil added was 0.3ml, and the time of a single experiment was 3140s. One drop was added every 300s. In this experiment, 10 drops of lubricating oil were added to the friction contact surface, with a total volume of 3ml. When lubricating oil is added to the friction surface every time, the lubricating oil does not stay at the frictional contact position completely, but mostly flows along the sample to the oil pool below, so there will be the phenomenon of lubricating oil flow.
- The analysis of the paragraph does not lead to the statement given in the last sentence“But the oil storage effect of micro-texture can play a good tribological action” (336). What does a“good tribological action” consist in?
Answer: I'm really sorry that my expression may not be rigorous enough. My good tribological action means good anti-friction and anti-wear effect.
- In the summary, I suggest adding a phrase: "at a lower speed" at the end of the following sentence:(19-20) "But the dynamic pressure of the oil in the micro texture did not play an obvious role in reducing friction".
Answer: I have modified the paper according to your suggestion.
Notes on editing the work
- Table 1 (181) - no unit of the measured parameter.
Answer：I have correct the above problem.
- Table 2 (245) – axis description “Wear marks width(μm)” and “Deepest depth of the wear marks(μm)” – no spaces before the bracket (μm).
Answer：I have correct the above problem.
- Figure 5 and 6 –"contact angle" needs units (tables)
Answer：I have correct the above problem.
- Figure 8 (220) - axe "Rool Times" needs unit [s].
Answer：I have correct the above problem.
- Figure 14 (328) -axis description-no spaces between the axis description and the bracket with the parameter unit.
Answer：I have correct the above problem.
- in many places, there is no space between words
Answer：I have correct the above problem.
- line (54 i 56) - delete(2) i (3)
Answer：Since there are three theories, (1) has already appeared before, so (2) and (3) are not deleted here.
- Standardize the description in the content of the publication - Figure or Fig. and Table or Tab.
Answer：I have correct the above problem.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors report on the antifriction mechanism of nitriding surface texture 304 steel to improve its application. They tested the surface microhardness, surface work function, contact angle and surface morphology.
I only have one minor comment. The authors use terminology for static water contact angle as apparent contact angle. May I ask why? And they don't state the measurement errors, that would be welcome. They also mention surface energy, but i don't see it listed in the results. If they don't use this parameter for surface properties evaluation, i'd suggest to omitt from the text as it is misleading.
If the authors respond and review the manuscript accordingly, I recommend it for publication in Coatings.
Author Response
The authors report on the antifriction mechanism of nitriding surface texture 304 steel to improve its application. They tested the surface microhardness, surface work function, contact angle and surface morphology.
I only have one minor comment. The authors use terminology for static water contact angle as apparent contact angle. May I ask why? And they don't state the measurement errors, that would be welcome. They also mention surface energy, but i don't see it listed in the results. If they don't use this parameter for surface properties evaluation, i'd suggest to omitt from the text as it is misleading.
Answer: Static water contact Angle is described as apparent contact Angle in many literatures, which is consistent with the existing contact Angle theory. The measurement error includes environmental error and computer image recognition error. The result is the average of multiple measurement results, so I think the difference between the measured value and the average value is the measurement error.
I have delete the surface energy from the text.
Thank you for your question. If there is anything wrong with my answer, please correct it. Thank you so much!
If the authors respond and review the manuscript accordingly, I recommend it for publication in Coatings.
