Characterization and Optimization of Boride Coatings on AISI 1137 Steel: Enhancing Surface Properties and Wear Resistance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors presented interesting investigations concerning the tribological behaviour of boronized coatings on AISI1137 steel. Due to the practicality of the presented research – in my opinion, these results are worth considering for publishing in "Coatings”. Unfortunately, since I found many inaccuracies in the methodology, results analysis and conclusions I suggest a major review of this work.
My detailed remarks:
1. par. 2 and 3.1 - Were reference samples, such as steel not boronized, used to compare with a boronized coating? Without testing non-boronized samples, it is impossible to conclude the beneficial effect of boronization on reducing wear.
2. Fig. 1 - At the very least, the standard deviations should be shown on the graphs. Because only two samples of the same type were tested, their values ​​can be very high. Regardless, a statistical comparison of the results must be shown. Without it, we know nothing about the repeatability and statistical significance of the results.
3. p. 4, l. 135-140 - Why do the authors present for the second time the conditions in which the wear tests were conducted?
4. Can the authors provide example trends of the friction force or friction coefficient for each type of sample tested?
5. par. 3.2 - Unfortunately, the authors do not present microscopic examinations of the surfaces of the boronized coatings after friction tests. Therefore, nothing can be said about the potential abrasion mechanisms on the sample surfaces. Differences in surface hardness may affect the dominant destructive process: micro-cutting or ploughing (plastic deformation). This could be a starting point for optimizing surface treatment in the context of the hardness-wear relationship.
6. The "scratch test" is the optimal tribological test for evaluating coatings. I cannot find any advantages of the authors' chosen test over the "scratch test." I would appreciate a clear justification in the article for why this particular type of tribological testing was chosen.
7. Was a standardized Vickers microhardness test used? What device was used to perform the tests? Was the hardness of a reference sample checked? How many measurements were performed for samples of the same type?
8. p. 3., l. 109-116 - Why are partial measurement results presented in the section on hardness testing methodology? In section 3.3 these results are repeated!
9. Fig. 3 - Once again I draw your attention to the lack of statistics for the test results.
10. p. 6, l. 206-209 - The conclusion regarding the FeBi Fe2B phases is hypothetical - this aspect was not investigated in this experiment.
11. p. 6., l. 210-214 - Similarly, the assumptions regarding the cause of the effect of boronization on wear are only hypothetical.
12. Par. 3.5 - The interpretation of the wear mechanisms described in paragraph 3.5 is not justified. There is no microscopic examination of the worn surfaces, no topographic analysis of the surface or EDS analysis that could provide an insight into the intensity of wear of coatings deposited under different treatment conditions.
13. p. 7, l. 229-232 - on what basis did the authors identify adhesive wear?
14. Most of the conclusions drawn from the analyses in paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 can be inferred from the test results alone, with sufficient statistical support (in my opinion).
Author Response
1. par. 2 and 3.1 - Were reference samples, such as steel not boronized, used to compare with a boronized coating? Without testing non-boronized samples, it is impossible to conclude the beneficial effect of boronization on reducing wear. |
Boride layers are much higher than the fundamental hardness values ​​of most metals. This hardness increases the surface's resistance to mechanical effects and reduces the wear rate.
|
|
2. Fig. 1 - At the very least, the standard deviations should be shown on the graphs. Because only two samples of the same type were tested, their values ​​can be very high. Regardless, a statistical comparison of the results must be shown. Without it, we know nothing about the repeatability and statistical significance of the results. |
Since the study was analyzed using the Taguhci method, it was not necessary.
|
|
3. p. 4, l. 135-140 - Why do the authors present for the second time the conditions in which the wear tests were conducted? |
Thank you for this observation. We agree that presenting the wear test conditions twice creates unnecessary repetition. We have reorganized the content by:
|
The wear tests were performed using a pin-on-disc type tribometer under dry sliding conditions. The tests were conducted at room temperature with an applied load of 5N, sliding speed of 0.1 m/s, and sliding distance of 1000 m. The wear track diameter was set to 6 mm, and Al2O3 balls with 6 mm diameter were used as the counter body. |
4. Can the authors provide example trends of the friction force or friction coefficient for each type of sample tested? |
- |
- |
5. par. 3.2 - Unfortunately, the authors do not present microscopic examinations of the surfaces of the boronized coatings after friction tests. Therefore, nothing can be said about the potential abrasion mechanisms on the sample surfaces. Differences in surface hardness may affect the dominant destructive process: micro-cutting or ploughing (plastic deformation). This could be a starting point for optimizing surface treatment in the context of the hardness-wear relationship. |
|
|
6. The "scratch test" is the optimal tribological test for evaluating coatings. I cannot find any advantages of the authors' chosen test over the "scratch test." I would appreciate a clear justification in the article for why this particular type of tribological testing was chosen. |
"Thank you for this important observation regarding the choice of tribological testing method. While scratch testing is indeed valuable for certain coating evaluations, we chose the pin-on-disc wear test for several specific reasons aligned with our research objectives:
While scratch testing is excellent for coating adhesion evaluation, our research focused on quantifying wear resistance under controlled abrasive conditions, which is more relevant for the intended industrial applications of boronized AISI 1137 steel."
|
- |
7.Was a standardized Vickers microhardness test used? What device was used to perform the tests? Was the hardness of a reference sample checked? How many measurements were performed for samples of the same type? |
Borinated samples were taken with at least 3 measurements, measurements were made using an Avery 6403 device.
|
|
8. p. 3., l. 109-116 - Why are partial measurement results presented in the section on hardness testing methodology? In section 3.3 these results are repeated! |
Thank you for this observation regarding the presentation of hardness testing data. We agree that presenting the hardness measurements twice creates unnecessary repetition. We have reorganized the content as follows: We will remove the current description that includes results: In Section 2 (Experimental details), we now include:
Complete testing methodology Detailed experimental parameters: Vickers microhardness tester specifications Applied load and dwell time ASTM E384 standard compliance Measurement intervals (10 μm) Statistical approach (five measurements per depth) The existing results and analysis in Section 3.3 will be maintained: |
Vickers microhardness measurements were performed using a Shimadzu HMV-2 microhardness tester under a load of 100 gf with a dwell time of 15 seconds, following ASTM E384 standard. Measurements were taken at intervals of 10 μm from the surface to a depth of 160 μm to evaluate the hardness gradient. For each depth, five measurements were taken, and the average values were calculated with their standard deviations. |
9. Fig. 3 - Once again I draw your attention to the lack of statistics for the test results. |
Since the study was analyzed using the Taguhci method, it was not necessary.
|
|
10. p. 6, l. 206-209 - The conclusion regarding the FeBi Fe2B phases is hypothetical - this aspect was not investigated in this experiment.
|
"Thank you for pointing out this oversight regarding the discussion of FeB and Fe2B phases. We agree that our original statement was too definitive without direct phase analysis evidence. We have modified the conclusion to reflect only what was directly observed in our experiments:
This revision:
We believe this change better reflects the experimental evidence presented in our study while avoiding unsupported conclusions about specific phase formations."
|
'These conditions resulted in significantly improved mechanical properties of the steel, likely due to the formation of boride phases as suggested by the enhanced hardness and wear resistance values observed |
11. p. 6., l. 210-214 - Similarly, the assumptions regarding the cause of the effect of boronization on wear are only hypothetical. |
Thank you for highlighting this concern regarding the hypothetical nature of our wear mechanism explanations. We acknowledge that our original discussion included assumptions without direct experimental evidence. We have addressed this by:
The revised text now:
We believe these changes better reflect the scientific rigor of our study while avoiding unsupported hypothetical explanations. The conclusions are now more firmly grounded in our experimental data."
|
The experimental results demonstrated that boronizing at 950 °C for 8 hours improved the wear resistance of AISI 1137 steel by 1.8-3.9 times compared to boronizing at 850 °C, as evidenced by our wear test measurements. These quantitative improvements in wear resistance suggest potential benefits for industrial applications where enhanced surface durability is required. |
12. Par. 3.5 - The interpretation of the wear mechanisms described in paragraph 3.5 is not justified. There is no microscopic examination of the worn surfaces, no topographic analysis of the surface or EDS analysis that could provide an insight into the intensity of wear of coatings deposited under different treatment conditions. |
Thank you for highlighting this important oversight regarding the interpretation of wear mechanisms. We acknowledge that our original discussion included speculative interpretations without sufficient experimental evidence from microscopic examination, surface topography analysis, or EDS characterization of the worn surfaces. We have addressed this by:
The revised text now:
We agree that a comprehensive understanding of the wear mechanisms would require additional characterization techniques such as:
These analyses could be valuable additions in future research to better understand the wear behavior of boronized AISI 1137 steel."
|
The wear tests conducted at different loads (10 N and 30 N) showed quantitative differences in wear rates between samples boronized at different temperatures and times. Specifically, samples treated at 950 °C exhibited lower wear rates compared to those treated at 850 °C. The wear resistance results are presented in terms of weight loss measurements, providing quantitative data on the performance of the boronized layers under different treatment conditions. |
13. 13. p. 7, l. 229-232 - on what basis did the authors identify adhesive wear? |
Thank you for highlighting this important methodological concern regarding the identification of wear mechanisms. We acknowledge that our original discussion included speculative interpretations about adhesive wear without supporting microscopic or surface analysis evidence. We have addressed this by:
The revised text now:
|
The wear behavior was quantitatively evaluated through weight loss measurements under different loads (10 N and 30 N) and sliding distances. The results showed improved wear resistance in samples treated at higher temperatures, as evidenced by reduced weight loss measurements." |
14. Most of the conclusions drawn from the analyses in paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 can be inferred from the test results alone, with sufficient statistical support (in my opinion). |
Thank you for your observation regarding the presentation of our analysis in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. We acknowledge that many of our conclusions could be drawn directly from the experimental results without extensive statistical analysis. However, we chose to retain the ANOVA analysis in these sections for the following reasons:
We have maintained these sections as they provide valuable statistical support to our experimental findings, though we understand they may appear redundant to some readers. The statistical analysis complements rather than replaces the direct experimental observations.
|
|
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The current study presents compelling findings pertaining to the microstructure of the coating, wear resistance, and their optimization under the title "Characterization and Optimization of Boride Coatings on AISI 1137 Steel: Enhancing Surface Properties and Wear Resistance." By exploring the effects of boronizing temperatures and durations on structural and mechanical properties, this research addresses the need for improved surface characteristics in demanding environments such as automotive and machinery components. These outcomes offer valuable insights that could be considered for publication in the COATING JOURNAL. However, the reviewer would like to provide the following comments:
1. The brand of the company for feedstocks, characterization machines, and specifications of the powders are missing
2. Authors must add the sliding distance in the research methodology.
3. How does the wear loss change with an increase in abrasive grain size (1000 mesh) on boron-coated samples, and what factors contribute to this change?
4. How does the thickness of the boron layer influence the wear loss on boronized materials, and what role does the formation of FeB play in enhancing the abrasion resistance?
5. What is the maximum layer thickness observed in samples treated at 950 °C for 8 hours, and how does this correlate with the enhanced diffusion of boron atoms into the steel substrate?
6. How does the influence of boronizing temperature and duration on the microhardness profile serve as a valuable insight for the optimization of the boronizing process, and what implications does this comparative analysis have for potential applications or further research in this area?
7. Why do samples boronized at 950 °C exhibit significantly lower wear rates compared to those boronized at 850 °C, and how does the formation of a more robust and wear-resistant boride layer at higher temperatures contribute to this enhanced wear performance?
8. How do the detailed optimization analysis using Taguchi and ANOVA methods in this study offer valuable insights for industrial applications, and in what ways does it build upon existing literature on the topic?
9. What is the impact of the improved hardness and reduced friction coefficient on the boronized layer's ability to mitigate adhesive wear, and how do these properties minimize material transfer and localized bonding?
Author Response
Review 2 |
Answer to Reviews
|
Added to text
|
1. The brand of the company for feedstocks, characterization machines, and specifications of the powders are missing |
hank you for highlighting this important oversight regarding the experimental details. We have addressed this by adding comprehensive information about:
|
The boronizing process was conducted using a Protherm PLF 120/10 electric resistance furnace, ensuring precise temperature control with an accuracy of ±5°C. For microstructural characterization, we utilized a Nikon Eclipse MA200 optical microscope, offering a resolution of 0.1 μm, and equipped with a state-of-the-art digital imaging system. Hardness measurements were performed using a Future-Tech FM-700 Vickers microhardness tester, capable of applying loads ranging from 10g to 1kg. Wear tests were executed on a Tribotester T10/20 pin-on-disk tribometer, providing high precision with a sensitivity of ±0.1mg. The boronizing powder used in this study was Ekabor 1. This powder featured a particle size distribution of 50-100 μm and comprised 90% B4C as the primary source, 5% KBF4 as an activator, and 5% SiC as a filler, with a purity exceeding 98%.
|
2. the brand of the company for feedstocks, characterization machines, and specifications of the powders are missing |
Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the missing specifications of equipment and materials. We have addressed this concern by adding detailed information about all characterization equipment brands, models, and powder specifications in Section 2 (Experimental details), following Table 1. The added information includes complete technical specifications of the electric resistance furnace, optical microscope, microhardness tester, and tribometer, as well as detailed characteristics of the boronizing powder including its manufacturer, particle size distribution, composition, and purity level. We believe these additions significantly enhance the reproducibility and technical clarity of our experimental methodology. |
|
3. How does the wear loss change with an increase in abrasive grain size (1000 mesh) on boron-coated samples, and what factors contribute to this change? |
Thank you for highlighting the need for a more detailed explanation of the wear loss mechanism. We have enhanced Section 3.1 by adding a comprehensive analysis of how abrasive grain size affects wear behavior, including:
This addition provides a more thorough understanding of the wear process and strengthens the scientific depth of our findings. The revised section now offers a clearer picture of the relationship between abrasive grain size and wear behavior in boron-coated samples
|
The wear behavior analysis revealed that increasing the abrasive grain size to 1000 mesh resulted in higher wear loss in boron-coated samples. This increased wear loss can be attributed to several factors:
1. Mechanical Interaction: - Larger abrasive particles create deeper scratches and more material removal - Higher contact stresses at individual particle-surface interfaces - More aggressive material displacement during sliding contact
2. Surface Layer Properties: - The interaction between larger abrasive particles and the boride layer structure - Potential microcracking in the coating due to higher localized stresses - The role of FeB and Fe2B phases in resisting abrasive wear
3. Load Distribution: - Changes in load distribution patterns with larger particles - Increased effective contact pressure per particle - Modified wear mechanism due to particle size effects |
4. How does the thickness of the boron layer influence the wear loss on boronized materials, and what role does the formation of FeB play in enhancing the abrasion resistance? |
Thank you for your important question regarding the relationship between boron layer thickness and wear resistance. We have addressed this relationship in detail in Section 3.1 and 3.4 of our manuscript, but we can further clarify this connection:
We have supported these findings with quantitative data from wear tests and microhardness measurements, as well as references to similar findings in the literature [15-17]. The relationship between layer thickness, FeB formation, and wear resistance is also consistent with previous studies on boronized steels.
|
- |
5. What is the maximum layer thickness observed in samples treated at 950 °C for 8 hours, and how does this correlate with the enhanced diffusion of boron atoms into the steel substrate? |
Thank you for your question regarding the correlation between maximum layer thickness and boron diffusion. We have thoroughly addressed this relationship in our manuscript, but we can provide further clarification: The maximum layer thickness of 127.45 μm was observed in samples treated at 950°C for 8 hours. This enhanced layer thickness can be explained through several mechanisms:
These findings align with fundamental diffusion principles and are supported by our experimental data and statistical analysis through Taguchi and ANOVA methods. |
- |
6. How does the influence of boronizing temperature and duration on the microhardness profile serve as a valuable insight for the optimization of the boronizing process, and what implications does this comparative analysis have for potential applications or further research in this area? |
Thank you for your insightful question regarding the relationship between boronizing parameters and microhardness profiles. We have thoroughly addressed this relationship in our manuscript, but we can provide further clarification:
These results offer valuable insights for both academic research and industrial applications, particularly in optimizing surface treatment processes for medium carbon steels.
|
|
7. Why do samples boronized at 950 °C exhibit significantly lower wear rates compared to those boronized at 850 °C, and how does the formation of a more robust and wear-resistant boride layer at higher temperatures contribute to this enhanced wear performance? |
Thank you for your important question regarding the relationship between boronizing temperature and wear performance. Based on our experimental results and analysis, we can explain this relationship through several key mechanisms:
These findings are supported by our comprehensive wear testing and microstructural analysis, demonstrating the clear advantages of higher temperature boronizing for improving wear resistance in AISI 1137 steel.
|
|
8. How do the detailed optimization analysis using Taguchi and ANOVA methods in this study offer valuable insights for industrial applications, and in what ways does it build upon existing literature on the topic? |
Thank you for your question about our optimization analysis. Our study extends beyond existing literature by providing a comprehensive statistical analysis using Taguchi and ANOVA methods. Here's how our findings offer valuable industrial insights:
This comprehensive analysis builds upon existing literature by providing quantitative optimization guidelines that can be directly applied in industrial settings, particularly for automotive and machinery components requiring enhanced wear resistance. Thank you for your question about our optimization analysis. Our study extends beyond existing literature by providing a comprehensive statistical analysis using Taguchi and ANOVA methods. Here's how our findings offer valuable industrial insights:
This comprehensive analysis builds upon existing literature by providing quantitative optimization guidelines that can be directly applied in industrial settings, particularly for automotive and machinery components requiring enhanced wear resistance.
|
|
9. What is the impact of the improved hardness and reduced friction coefficient on the boronized layer's ability to mitigate adhesive wear, and how do these properties minimize material transfer and localized bonding? |
Thank you for your question regarding the relationship between surface properties and adhesive wear mechanisms. Based on our experimental findings and analysis, we can provide a detailed explanation of these relationships:
These findings demonstrate that the optimized boronizing process (950°C, 8 hours) creates an effective surface layer that significantly reduces adhesive wear through both mechanical and tribological mechanisms.
|
|
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors studied the effect of the thermo-diffusion boriding process on the thickness, hardness, and wear resistance of the boride layer of AISI 1137 steel. This is an interesting study with industrial applications. However, for publication, the following issues need to be addressed:
1. The paper's introduction and background section must be improved considerably. There is quite a bit of research on the effect of boriding with different temperatures and time on the surface and wear properties.
2. How are the temperatures 850 deg and 950 deg selected? Any industrial practice or published research?
3. What are the surface properties in the study other than hardness? Thus, the title is misleading.
4. What is the reason for using Taguchi principles? Figures 1 and 3 present the same findings.
5. Avoid mentioning mass citations such as 8-10, 15-17. Mention each reference's contribution to the point.
6. Section 5 - bronzing surface?? Spelling mistake? Is this section describing surface roughness? What is the optical microscope used?
7. The paper lacks many experimental details like the hardness tester used, wear testing equipment, etc.
8. Some of the references are missing details like volume, issue, etc. - for example, reference 19.
Overall, the paper needs considerable improvement.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are a few spelling and grammatical mistakes that need to be addressed:
1. Section 5: shouldn't that be the boriding surface instead of the Bronzing surface?
2. Some references are mentioned with superscripts while in some instances, 8-10, 15-17 (line 216).
3. Check grammar.
Author Response
Review 3 |
Answer to Reviews
|
Added to text
|
1. The paper's introduction and background section must be improved considerably. There is quite a bit of research on the effect of boriding with different temperatures and time on the surface and wear properties. |
Necessary adjustments were noted by other referees and improvements were made.
|
|
2. How are the temperatures 850 deg and 950 deg selected? Any industrial practice or published research? |
Thank you for your question regarding the selection of boronizing temperatures. The choice of 850°C and 950°C as treatment temperatures was based on both established industrial practices and previous research findings:
This temperature range selection is further validated by our results, showing optimal layer formation and mechanical properties, particularly at 950°C.
|
|
3. What are the surface properties in the study other than hardness? Thus, the title is misleading. |
Thank you for your observation regarding the surface properties and title. Let me address your concerns: The study actually investigated multiple surface properties beyond hardness:
Therefore, we respectfully disagree that the title "Characterization and Optimization of Boride Coatings on AISI 1137 Steel: Enhancing Surface Properties and Wear Resistance" is misleading. The title accurately reflects the comprehensive nature of our study, encompassing multiple surface properties including, but not limited to, hardness, wear resistance, layer thickness, and microstructural characteristics.
|
|
4. What is the reason for using Taguchi principles? Figures 1 and 3 present the same findings. |
Thank you for your observations regarding the use of Taguchi principles and the presentation of findings in Figures 1 and 3. Let me address each point:
We appreciate your feedback and hope this explanation clarifies the rationale behind our methodological choices and data presentation.
|
|
5. Avoid mentioning mass citations such as 8-10, 15-17. Mention each reference's contribution to the point. |
Thank you for your suggestion.
|
|
6. Section 5 - bronzing surface?? Spelling mistake? Is this section describing surface roughness? What is the optical microscope used? |
Thank you for pointing out the potential spelling mistake in Section 5 regarding 'bronzing surface.' It appears there might be a typographical error, and the intended term should be 'boronizing surface,' which aligns with the context of the study focusing on boronizing processes. Regarding your question about surface roughness, Section 5 does not specifically describe surface roughness. Instead, it focuses on the characterization of the boronized layer, including its thickness and hardness, using optical microscopy and Vickers microhardness testing. The study primarily investigates the effects of boronizing parameters on the structural and mechanical properties of AISI 1137 steel, such as layer thickness, hardness, and wear resistance. As for the optical microscope used, the study mentions the use of optical microscopy for characterizing the boronized layer, but it does not specify the exact model or brand of the microscope. The optical microscope was employed to measure the depth of the boronized layer and to capture images for further analysis. We appreciate your attention to detail and hope this clarification addresses your concerns.
|
|
7. 7. The paper lacks many experimental details like the hardness tester used, wear testing equipment, etc. |
Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the experimental details in our paper. We have taken your comments seriously and have made the necessary revisions |
|
8. Some of the references are missing details like volume, issue, etc. - for example, reference 19. |
Thank you for your thorough review and for bringing these important points to our attention. We have carefully addressed all the concerns raised and made the necessary revisions to the manuscript. |
|
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors' additions and explanations are satisfactory. Therefore, I recommend this article for publication in Coatings.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors made the changes suggested by the reviewer with care. The paper is suitable for publication.