Morphology and Composition of the Third Body on the Friction Surface of an Organic Composite Railway Brake Shoe
, Yuan Ji 1, Dingfeng Pei 1, Ming Gao 1, Chuanzhi Chen 2, Jingcun Zhao 1 and Wei Wang 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The paper is a study about the composition and morphology of the third body formed on the friction surface of a railway brake shoe, useful for the analysis of the phenomenon of friction and wear of organic composite railway brake shoes. Attention: first there is friction, on the basis of which wear occurs, so the correct order is friction and wear!
However, there are still some problems to be solved, namely:
1. Who is the third body? Format how! It must also be specified in the Abstract (very briefly)! Attention: It is necessary to specify the conditions of formation of the third body (in the laboratory, exploitation, because other environmental factors also intervene, such as humidity, dust particles from the atmosphere, etc.) and then the structure, morphology, even and the composition can be relatively influenced, depending on the moment when the determinations were made! Regarding the third body, to improve the work, consult other works, such as the one with https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-0752-5, and for the brake shoe made of composite material, I think the work with https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15144745, is also useful.
2. In line 74-75 "...composition of the upper surface, lower surface...", who is the upper surface and who is the lower surface? I propose to put it in parentheses!
3. In line 96 "the braking pressure was 20 kN", I think it is about the pressing force, because the pressure is measured in N/m2!
4. I propose rewording the sentences from lines 168-170, because they don't sound right!
5. In line 177, I think it is not correct "... the diameter of some filler particles,..." which were round, semi-round, spherical, semi-spherical; but with the size of ...?
6. On line 193, "... the left and right sides of the cross-sectional image..." which image? Put in parenthesis what image or figure are you referring to?
7. In lines 196-204, In order to make such comparisons in %, a table with the composition of the material of the shoe and the wheel is needed, otherwise the question arises how these percentages were determined?
8. In Table 2, how was determined "Rate of change of elemental content (%)"? Why all with "-" (minus)? Then, 'elemental content' or 'elements content'!
9. In line 240-241, where does "... the thermal degradation of nitrile rubber..." come from?; because I did not see that there is also 'nitrile rubber' in the composition! Then don't use 'curve #1' or 'curve #2', but 'sample curve #1' or 'sample curve #2'!
10. I propose the reformulation of the sentence from line 257-258 "This phenomenon once again proved that the third body has experienced a history of high temperature", it is not clear what you want to say!
With small exceptions that I notified for the authors, I consider that minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your work.
The changes in the paper are highlighted in red.
If you have any questions, feel free to EMAIL me,13718307322@163.com
With kind regards,
Chunjiang He
The paper is a study about the composition and morphology of the third body formed on the friction surface of a railway brake shoe, useful for the analysis of the phenomenon of friction and wear of organic composite railway brake shoes. Attention: first there is friction, on the basis of which wear occurs, so the correct order is friction and wear!
“wear and friction” was corrected to “friction and wear”
However, there are still some problems to be solved, namely:
- Who is the third body? Format how! It must also be specified in the Abstract (very briefly)! Attention: It is necessary to specify the conditions of formation of the third body (in the laboratory, exploitation, because other environmental factors also intervene, such as humidity, dust particles from the atmosphere, etc.) and then the structure, morphology, even and the composition can be relatively influenced, depending on the moment when the determinations were made! Regarding the third body, to improve the work, consult other works, such as the one with https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-0752-5, and for the brake shoe made of composite material, I think the work with https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15144745, is also useful.
The third body was specified in the first word in the Abstract.
Some information is added to “2. Materials and Methods”.
The two papers have been read, and the second one (https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15144745) was cited.
- In line 74-75 "...composition of the upper surface, lower surface...", who is the upper surface and who is the lower surface? I propose to put it in parentheses!
This sentence has been rewritten.
- In line 96 "the braking pressure was 20 kN", I think it is about the pressing force, because the pressure is measured in N/m2!
It was the pressing force. The sentence has been rewritten.
- I propose rewording the sentences from lines 168-170, because they don't sound right!
You are right. This sentence has been rewritten,in line 190-191.
- In line 177, I think it is not correct "... the diameter of some filler particles,..." which were round, semi-round, spherical, semi-spherical; but with the size of ...?
This sentence has been rewritten,in line 197.
- On line 193, "... the left and right sides of the cross-sectional image..." which image? Put in parenthesis what image or figure are you referring to?
This sentence has been rewritten, and Figure 5 was put in parenthesis,in line 213.
- In lines 196-204, In order to make such comparisons in %, a table with the composition of the material of the shoe and the wheel is needed, otherwise the question arises how these percentages were determined?
The elemental composition of the third body was characterized by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). EDS could analyses for elements with atomic number greater than 12.
EDS results are expressed in terms of mass (wt.%) and Atomic ratio(ato.%).
Just like this:
[6] Ren, X.; Zhang, G.; Xu, H.; Wang, Z.; Liu, Y. Wear Resistance Mechanism of Sub-Nano Cu3P Phase
Enhanced the Cu-Pb-Sn Alloy. Coatings 2022, 12, 682. https:// doi.org/10.3390/coatings12050682
- In Table 2, how was determined "Rate of change of elemental content (%)"? Why all with "-" (minus)? Then, 'elemental content' or 'elements content'!
A description of the calculation process is added in “2.3. Test Rig and Measurements”
“elements content” has been changed to “celmental content”
- In line 240-241, where does "... the thermal degradation of nitrile rubber..." come from?; because I did not see that there is also 'nitrile rubber' in the composition! Then don't use 'curve #1' or 'curve #2', but 'sample curve #1' or 'sample curve #2'!
This paragraph has been rewritten,in line 261-269. 'curve #1' or 'curve #2' in the paper has been deleted.
- I propose the reformulation of the sentence from line 257-258 "This phenomenon once again proved that the third body has experienced a history of high temperature", it is not clear what you want to say!
This sentence has been rewritten,in line 285.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors presented an article about “Study on the Morphology and Composition of the Third Body on the Friction Surface of an Organic Composite Railway Brake Shoe.”
In this study, The authors conducted an applied study on an organic composite railway brake shoe. Although I want to state that the article is written in a self-sacrificing way, the introduction and material method part can be written in more detail. I believe it will interest the reader due to an applied study and a current study topic.
I think the paper is well organized and appropriate for the “Coatings” journal, but the paper will be ready for publication after major revision.
· The abstract looks good. Please include all significant numerical results.
· Please correct the citation style according to the journal rules. In addition, in a sentence “[2-13], [4,13,20-24], [18,19,21,22,25,27] “there are too many references. This is not considered an ethical situation. Please explain or remove these references separately in one sentence.
· What is the problem? Why was the manuscript written? Please explain the reason in the introduction part. In the last paragraph of the introduction, the novelty of the study and the differences from the past in detail should be expressed.
· Which international standards were tested and analyzed according to? Please specify.
· In the SEM analysis of the materials, the etching liquid used for the materials was not specified. Specify the etching fluid.
· Give more information about the materials used in the study.
· Please fix the typographical and eventual language problems in the paper.
· The paper is well-organized, yet there is a reference problem. First, your reference list contains no paper from the “Coatings” journal. If your work is convenient for this journal’s context, then there are many references from this journal. Secondly, cited sources should be primary ones. Namely, the indexed area shows the power of a paper and directly your paper’s reliability. Please make regulations in this direction.
*** Authors must consider them properly before submitting the revised manuscript. A point-by-point reply is required when the revised files are submitted.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
· Please fix the typographical and eventual language problems in the paper.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your work.
The changes in the paper are highlighted in red.
If you have any questions, feel free to EMAIL me,13718307322@163.com
With kind regards,
Chunjiang He
The authors presented an article about “Study on the Morphology and Composition of the Third Body on the Friction Surface of an Organic Composite Railway Brake Shoe.”
In this study, The authors conducted an applied study on an organic composite railway brake shoe. Although I want to state that the article is written in a self-sacrificing way, the introduction and material method part can be written in more detail. I believe it will interest the reader due to an applied study and a current study topic.
Some information is added to “2. Materials and Methods”.
I think the paper is well organized and appropriate for the “Coatings” journal, but the paper will be ready for publication after major revision.
The abstract looks good. Please include all significant numerical results.
The abstract was rewritten.
Please correct the citation style according to the journal rules. In addition, in a sentence “[2-13], [4,13,20-24], [18,19,21,22,25,27] “there are too many references. This is not considered an ethical situation. Please explain or remove these references separately in one sentence.
References were changed, 11 were deleted, 3 was added.
What is the problem? Why was the manuscript written? Please explain the reason in the introduction part. In the last paragraph of the introduction, the novelty of the study and the differences from the past in detail should be expressed.
The introduction was rewritten. the reason was explain in the second paragraph in the introduction.
The novelty of the study and the differences from the past in detail was introduced in the last paragraph of the introduction.
Which international standards were tested and analyzed according to? Please specify.
In this work, the braking experiment was tested according to GB/T 3104.1-2020 ,which was eaqual to UIC 541-4.
In the SEM analysis of the materials, the etching liquid used for the materials was not specified. Specify the etching fluid.
SEM images were directly seen in a vacuum. No etching liquid was used.
Give more information about the materials used in the study.
Some information is added to “2. Materials and Methods”.
Please fix the typographical and eventual language problems in the paper.
The typographical and eventual language problems have been checked.
The paper is well-organized, yet there is a reference problem. First, your reference list contains no paper from the “Coatings” journal. If your work is convenient for this journal’s context, then there are many references from this journal. Secondly, cited sources should be primary ones. Namely, the indexed area shows the power of a paper and directly your paper’s reliability. Please make regulations in this direction.
References were changed. Two papers in COATINGS ([ 6],[12] ) were cited.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Thanks to the authors for the additions and changes made. I noticed that you took into account all the observations made, but it could be even better if you show what others have done in relation to the third body, even if it does not refer to the railway braking system.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Thanks for reply
Minor editing of English language required
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Coatings-2331514
1- In the abstract, you need to focus more on quantitative information, not qualitative ones. In addition, In the Abstract the type of the test should be mentioned.
2- In the "Introduction" section, the authors were supposed to clarify the answers to the following questions;
a. Which exact problem was supposed to be solved by the present research?
b. Which new achievement(s) was supposed to be obtained by the present research compared to the previous reports?
3- Well-organized discussion should be added to the fracture mechanism of brake shoe, combined with scientific progress in the area. Provide a more in-depth discussion of related previous works.
4- Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 requires a scale bar. In addition, the unit of y axis of XRD patterns is missing.
5- The wt.% and at.% of each element should be indicated in the EDS pattern.
6- The author mentioned that “The lower surface of the third body was relatively rough with wear marks along the friction direction”. The wear marks along the friction direction should be indicated with the arrow (Fig. 3). Similarly, the author stated that “Several small pieces of debris were found on the surface”. In this regard, several debris should be indicated with the arrow (Fig. 4).
7- The definition of D–band and the G–band should be presented. In addition, the ID/IG intensity ratio values should be provided and discussed in the main text.
8- Some references about the graphene family may be useful for this article: Coatings 2022, 12, 63; Metals 2022, 12, 207. In addition, surprisingly small references to the Coatings in the literature despite the large relevant literature there. This should be improved. There are several important papers in recent literature.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you very much for your time and your valuable comments.
The changes have now been made as required, and please see the attached new file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors carry out a study on the morphological characteristics of the so-called "third body" which is formed during braking with a railway wheel. The work is very detailed and shows a large number of tests, but the aim of the research is not really known. For example, the influence of the different types of brake pads on the formation of this third body could have been studied, or also the influence of the braking magnitudes on the characteristics of the third body, among many other aspects. I really don't see the point of the work if it doesn't propose some objective for improvement.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you very much for your time and your valuable comments.
The changes have now been made as required, and please see the attached new file.
With kind regards,
Chunjiang He
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
coatings-2331514
Study on the Morphology and Composition of the Third Body on the Friction Surface of an Organic Composite Railway Brake Shoe
The schematic diagrams are not clearly explained. It should be discussed elaborately to understand the findings of this manuscript. The exact novelty of this paper is not understandable. As of my knowledge, it is simply a paper of experimental draft like a student thesis. This is not a research paper. The results and discussions are acceptable and well-presented. Include the below references to add more value for the publication.
https://doi.org/10.3139/120.111272
https://hal.science/hal-00109416/document
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40534-022-00285-y
There are no proper findings in this paper. I, as a reviewer of this manuscript, will not accept such a manuscript for publication in “Coatings”. This paper needs major revision.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you very much for your time and your valuable comments.
The changes have now been made as required, and please see the attached new file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Review: coatings-2331514
The authors have taken into account the comments as suggested in the revised version. Thus, this paper is acceptable for publication in Coatings.
Reviewer 2 Report
I still do not understand what the contribution of the work is. As can be seen in the conclusions, the work is merely descriptive and seems more like a thorough study on the analysis and composition of an element called "third body" that is generated in a braking test according to a standard. There is no design of experiments, there are no conclusions that would bring any real progress, there is no interest in this study for any kind of improvement. From my point of view this is a technical report and not a research work.
Reviewer 3 Report
I have gone through the revised manuscript and completely not satisfied with the revision. The authors have not carefully addressed all the comments raised. The authors should address all the comments and cite the suggested important publication to add the quality of the manuscript. The manuscript is lagging with technical validation. The author should rework on all the above important aspects and submit the revised manuscript for possible consideration. Therefore, I recommend Major Revision.
