Plasma-Beam Processing of Tools Made of SiAlON Dielectric Ceramics to Increase Wear Resistance When Cutting Nickel–Chromium Alloys

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract, title and references

The aim and the findings of the study are clear. The methods were well presented, and the tittle is informative and relevant. The references are equally relevant, correctly referenced, and key studies were cited, but in general there are many references (87) and few recent references (only four from 2020). Some self-citations were observed, but they did not compromise the study.

Introduction/background

The introduction brings important information about the studies related. The research question of the study is clearly outlined and justified given relevant data about the topic.

Methods

The process of subject selection is clear, the study methods are valid and reliable. In general, there is enough details in order to replicate the study. However I suggest that the methodology and the description of apparatus used in the abrasion resistance test and in the wear of cutting plates test must be added in the methods section.

Results and discussion

The data are presented in an appropriate way by tables and figures, which are relevant and clearly depicted. The units, rounding, and number of decimals are appropriate. And finally, the text in the results add to the data.

Conclusions

The conclusions answer the aims of the study and are supported by results.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

The following is a report on changes we have made in the revised manuscript to meet your suggestions

 

Abstract, title and references

The aim and the findings of the study are clear. The methods were well presented, and the tittle is informative and relevant. The references are equally relevant, correctly referenced, and key studies were cited, but in general there are many references (87) and few recent references (only four from 2020). Some self-citations were observed, but they did not compromise the study.

In the revised manuscript, we diminished the number of references from 87 to 70, however all key studies are left cited.

 

Introduction/background

The introduction brings important information about the studies related. The research question of the study is clearly outlined and justified given relevant data about the topic.

 

Methods

The process of subject selection is clear, the study methods are valid and reliable. In general, there is enough details in order to replicate the study. However, I suggest that the methodology and the description of apparatus used in the abrasion resistance test and in the wear of cutting plates test must be added in the methods section.

In the methods section we have indicated apparatus used in the abrasion resistance test – Calotest instrument produced by CSM Instruments (Alpnach, Germany) and in the wear of cutting plates test – SteREO DiscoveryV8 metallographic microscope manufactured by Carl Zeiss Microscopy (Germany). The methodology, measurements procedure and the results are described in detail in Subsection 3.3. Abrasion Resistance and Wear of Cutting Plates on pages 13–15.

 

Results and discussion

The data are presented in an appropriate way by tables and figures, which are relevant and clearly depicted. The units, rounding, and number of decimals are appropriate. And finally, the text in the results add to the data.

 

Conclusions

The conclusions answer the aims of the study and are supported by results.

 

Thank you very much for your encouraging review.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents an interesting study about the improvement of wear resistance of Si-AlON dielectric ceramics cutting plates. However, the paper needs major revisions before it is processed further, some comments follow:

Abstract

The abstract must be reformulated. The abstract must contain information about:

• Background: Please highlight the purpose of the study;
• Methods: Describe briefly the main methods used to obtain and characterize the material
• Results and conclusions: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations.

Introduction section

The introduction section must be improved.

Multiple citations have been introduced in bulk form "[1-4]", "[5-10]", "[11-13]", "[17-20]", "[23-26]" , "[27-32]"  , "[33-39]" etc.  and not distributed in the text following the affirmations that must be supported. Please introduce citation at a specific position to assure a clear correspondence between the affirmations from the introduction section and the previous publication. Moreover, to avoid this type of citing, please cite review type of studies.

Figure 1. Please introduce Figure labels to highlight the areas of interest for the reader.

In the last paragraph of the introduction section, must be mentioned the main aim of the work and highlighted the methods used, and the main conclusions.

Materials and Methods

Subsection 2.1. Please add the methods used to determine the physical and mechanical characteristics of ceramic materiale, or cite the corresponding reference. Also, for the XH45MBTJuBP alloy.  

Figure 2a. Please introduce Figure labels to highlight the areas of interest for the reader.

Figure 2b is not clear.

Figures 4 and 5 have the same title. Please check and change it.  

Results

Please change the name of this section in Results and discussions and remove the section Discussion.

Figure 8. Please highlight the defects.

Figures 10, 11 and 13 are not clear. Please replace them.

„Figure 1. Hardness and Scratch Tester produced by Nanovea Mechanical Testing (United Kingdom) was used”. It is not clear, please rewrite.

Conclusions

The conclusion section is missing. The conclusions can be written by points with highlights.

Reference section

Please check carefully the correlation between the cited papers and the position of that reference in the manuscript text body.

Also, are too many self-citation (over 6). Please keep only the necessary references.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

The following is a report on changes we have made in the revised manuscript to meet your suggestions.

 

1. 1. Abstract

The abstract must be reformulated. The abstract must contain information about:

Background: Please highlight the purpose of the study;

Methods: Describe briefly the main methods used to obtain and characterize the material

Results and conclusions: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations

In the revised manuscript, we have highlighted the purpose of the study, main methods and main conclusions changing the abstract as follows:

“The research is aimed at an increase in wear resistance of round cutting plates manufactured of SiAlON dielectric ceramics through wear-resistant coatings deposition. To increase effectiveness of the coatings, their adhesion was improved due to removal of defective surface layers from the cutting plates before the deposition. As the depth of caverns and grooves appearing on the cutting plates due to manufacturing by diamond grinding reaches 5 µm, a concentrated beam of fast argon atoms was used for the removal of defective layers with a thickness exceeding the depth of caverns and grooves. At the equal angles of incidence to the front and back surfaces of the cutting wedge amounting to 45 degrees, two-hour-long etching of rotating cutting plates provides removal from the surfaces of defective layers with a thickness of ~ 10 µm. After the removal, the cutting edge radius of the plates diminished from 20 to 10 µm, which indicates the cutting plates sharpening. Wear-resistant TiAlN coatings deposited after the etching significantly improve the processing stability and increase wear resistance of the cutting plates by not less than 1.7 times.”.

 

2. Introduction section

The introduction section must be improved.

Multiple citations have been introduced in bulk form "[1-4]", "[5-10]", "[11-13]", "[17-20]", "[23-26]" , "[27-32]"  , "[33-39]" etc. and not distributed in the text following the affirmations that must be supported. Please introduce citation at a specific position to assure a clear correspondence between the affirmations from the introduction section and the previous publication. Moreover, to avoid this type of citing, please cite review type of studies.

We have done our best to distribute citations in the text and now all hyphens are removed from the brackets.

 

Figure 1. Please introduce Figure labels to highlight the areas of interest for the reader.

In the revised manuscript, we introduced Figure labels indicating “grooves” and “cutting edge”.

 

In the last paragraph of the introduction section, must be mentioned the main aim of the work and highlighted the methods used, and the main conclusions.

In the revised manuscript, we mentioned in last paragraph of the Introduction the main aim of the work, the methods used, and the main conclusions.

 

Materials and Methods

Subsection 2.1. Please add the methods used to determine the physical and mechanical characteristics of ceramic material, or cite the corresponding reference. Also, for the XH45MBTJuBP alloy. 

In the revised manuscript, we cited a reference on the physical and mechanical characteristics of ceramic material and indicated the name of the manufacturing company, which supplies us with the XH45MBTJuBP alloy and with the data on its physical and mechanical characteristics. Its chemical composition we evaluated using our own X-ray fluorescence spectrometer Bruker S8 TIGER Series 2.

 

Figure 2a. Please introduce Figure labels to highlight the areas of interest for the reader.

Figure 2b is not clear.

To highlight the areas of interest for the reader and make the Figures more clear we changed the captions and indicated “holder” and “cutting plate”.

 

Figures 4 and 5 have the same title. Please check and change it. 

In the revised manuscript, we changed the caption for Figure 5

 

Results

Please change the name of this section in Results and discussions and remove the section Discussion.

In the revised manuscript, we changed the section name for Results and discussion.

 

Figure 8. Please highlight the defects.

In the revised manuscript, we highlighted caverns on the cutting plate surface.

 

Figures 10, 11 and 13 are not clear. Please replace them.

We changed Figures 10, 11 and 13 to make clearer the measurement of the cutting edge radius

 

„Figure 1. Hardness and Scratch Tester produced by Nanovea Mechanical Testing (United Kingdom) was used”. It is not clear, please rewrite.

You are perfectly right, it is not clear. I guess it is a technical error or misprint. We just checked and found that it was written in the manuscript we submitted “For characterization of the coating adhesion a Nanovea M1 Hardness and Scratch Tester produced by Nanovea Mechanical Testing (United Kingdom) was used.” In the revised manuscript, we corrected the error.

 

Conclusions

The conclusion section is missing. The conclusions can be written by points with highlights.

In the revised manuscript, we added the conclusion section.

 

Reference section

Please check carefully the correlation between the cited papers and the position of that reference in the manuscript text body.

We diminished the number of references and checked correlation between the cited paper and the position of that reference in the manuscript text body.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper, author propose a method for wear-resistant coating deposition on cutting plates made of Si-AlON dielectric ceramics after stripping defected layers from their surfaces by a beam of fast argon atoms. Wear-resistant TiAlN coatings deposited after the etching increase wear resistance of the cutting plates by not less than 1.7 times and significantly increases the stability of processing. My detailed comments are as follows:

• There are many grammar problems in the article that need to be revised, such as the top paragraph on the second page.
• Figure 1 and Figure 10 are too close to the text above, and the spacing should be appropriately increased.
• The explanation of the content at the bottom of Figure 1 is not clear, and there is a problem with the above logic, which needs to be modified.
• The paragraph above formula 3 is incorrectly formatted.
• Figure 11 needs some clarity.
• There are several published papers on the ceramic joint properties, I think you can investigate and apply it for further ceramic applications.  10.1007/s10853-020-04660-0 10.1007/s12598-020-01520-3

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

The following is a report on changes we have made in the revised manuscript to meet your suggestions.

 

1. There are many grammar problems in the article that need to be revised, such as the top paragraph on the second page.

We have revised the whole text using the program “Grammarly”.

 

2. Figure 1 and Figure 10 are too close to the text above, and the spacing should be appropriately increased.

We have increased the spacing between Figure 1 and Figure 10 and the text above.

 

3. The explanation of the content at the bottom of Figure 1 is not clear, and there is a problem with the above logic, which needs to be modified.

To make explanation of the content at the bottom of Figure 1 clearer, we changed the caption and highlighted the defects on the cutting plate surface.

 

4. The paragraph above formula 3 is incorrectly formatted.

We have formatted the paragraph above formula 3 more correctly. Now its first line starts with an indent.

 

5. Figure 11 needs some clarity.

We changed Figures 10, 11 and 13 to make clearer the measurement of the cutting edge radius.

Hope that now there is enough clarity.

Thank you very much for your encouraging review.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed all of my comments. The manuscript can be accepted for publication in the present form.