The Influence of Roughness of Surfaces on Wear Mechanisms in Metal–Rock Interactions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript presents a detailed analysis of the interaction between rocks and metals under dry friction conditions, with a focus on the phenomenon of abrasive wear. As well as a great deal data on mechanical, friction and wear data of rocks are contributed. The results can be applied to enhance the performance and durability of equipment employed in various industries, including mining, construction, and materials processing. The design of the study, the test methods, the data process and the discussion are all in good control and expressed. The results and conclusion are full of application value in many industrial fields. As mentioned above do I recommend the manuscript to be published at Coatings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript “The Influence of Surfaces Roughness on Wear Mechanisms in Metal-Rock Interactions” submitted to Coatings presents a real application of wear study, evaluating the wear of metals over different rocks. The work presents clearly the results, supporting the conclusions. However, the manuscript is too long, and a reduction of its length would improve its quality and promote a more pleasant reading. The reviewer does not recommend the manuscript acceptance in its actual condition, and lists important points that the authors must consider:
Line 60: The reviewer recommends citation on specific points of the work avoiding general ones, e.g., “The wear of metallic elements in contact with rocks is a complex process [2-5] influenced by various factors, including rock properties and material interactions, which significantly impact equipment performance and operational costs [6-11].” The authors reference six works to say that wear impacts operational costs. A single reference with numeric values is enough.
Line 72: The reviewer recommends complementing the statement “The metal coating industry seeks advancements to enhance performance [5], [21].” with “An example of coating effectiveness is the deposition of WC-12Co and WC-10Co4Cr by high-velocity oxy-fuel on additive manufactured maraging steel, reducing its abrasion wear, coefficient of friction, and corrosion [10.3390/met11071092]”.
Line 91: The reviewer recommends referencing the data presented in Table 1.
Line 138: The reviewer recommends referencing the data presented in Table 2.
Line 140: The reviewer recommends referencing the data presented in Table 3.
Line 141: The reviewer recommends referencing the data presented in Table 4.
Line 225-241: The reviewer recommends deleting this whole paragraph.
Line 252: The reviewer recommends listing only the rocks evaluated in this work. In the Results section seven rocks testing results are presented and Table 5 lists fifteen minerals.
Line 268: The reviewer recommends listing only the rocks evaluated in this work. In the Results section seven rocks testing results are presented and Table 6 lists fifteen minerals.
Line 283-300: The reviewer recommends moving these paragraphs and merging them with the Discussion section.
Line 344: The reviewer recommends deleting Figure 2.
Line 348-361: What steel was used as counterpart for the friction testing? It is presented in Table 9 (10Cr6), but it has to be listed in Materials and Methods section.
Line 416-417: The reviewer recommends moving Figure 7 to Results section.
Line 418-419: The reviewer recommends moving Figure 7 to Results section. As well as plot the graphs of all the samples.
Line 438-440: The reviewer recommends deleting this whole paragraph.
Line 449: The reviewer recommends “Ra increasing, %” instead of “Growth rate of Ra, %”.
Line 449: The reviewer recommends using the same decimals for all the Ra values, i.e., 4.0 instead of 4.
Line 449: The reviewer recommends “Load, N” and deleting the unit from the following rows.
Line 461: Isn’t the data seen in Figure 10 already presented in Table 8?
The reviewer recommends merging and reducing the length of the Results and Discussion sections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe reviewed article: The Influence of Surfaces Roughness on Wear Mechanisms in Metal-Rock Interactions is valuable.
The abstract is comprehensive, the authors have presented the scope of the manuscript well in this abstract.
The keywords were chosen correctly.
I believe that the structure of the manuscript was written well and is logical.
Part of the introduction contains obvious infomation, such as: The wear of metallic elements in contact with rocks is a complex process [2-5] influenced by various factors, including rock properties and material interactions, which significantly impact equipment performance and operational costs [6-11]. I believe that using so many sources from the literature in such tasks is not necessary. It is more important to provide details and subject them to thorough anliasis.
The authors presented in Table 1 Classification of rocks and mineral resources according to resistance to drilling - this is well done and is important.
I think that fignuek 1 is important, it should be revised, perhaps the Authors can make 3d models, on which they will apply the appropriate markings.
Table 5 shows pictures that are not well described. Their description is missing and the scale is missing (I don't know what area the photo shows).
In Figure 3 I propose to introduce markings, at the same time I think that Figure 4 is not necessary. I propose to describe in more detail the probes used in the study (Figure 9).
I believe that the results and ch discussion were well prepared, good literature sources were cited.
The authors have done a good job, I think the manuscript is worth publishing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy comments are:
1. It seems to me, the title of the manuscript “The Influence of Surfaces Roughness on Wear Mechanisms in Metal-Rock Interactions” is not entirely successful. Moreover, according to English grammar, it should be “The Influence of Roughness of Surfaces on Wear Mechanisms in Metal-Rock Interactions” since it deals with the roughness of surfaces both metal and rock materials. And anyway, is metal roughness important?
2. I think the conclusions should be as brief as possible, on the one hand, and not contain general expressions and statements, on the other hand. There should be only the specific results in the conclusions.
Respected authors are recommended to avoid, both in conclusions and in the abstract, general words and expressions such as “Based on the obtained results”, “There is significant variability in the results” and others.
It should not be any considerations/discussions in the abstract and in the conclusions, since there appear difficulties the readers to find the novelty and the relevance of this research.
For example, lines 26-30:”The results obtained have shown a strong correlation between …” These are general statements. What specific correlation? Increase, decrease, extreme dependence, synergism or something else?
3. Keywords also reflect poorly the main sense and content of the work. The order of keywords also is very important. In my opinion, the list of keywords should be compiled in descending or ascending order of importance.
4. There are too many trivial statements such as “the increased load on the tool leads to rapid wear in the case of rocks exhibiting these mechanical properties [28-31]”. The references are not needed here at all. This is absolutely obvious. There is no opposite case. This is not the only statement of such type in the manuscript. I believe that these statements do not contribute to the improvement of the manuscript.
The same is, e.g., “sharper and harder particles….lead to significant abrasive wear of the metal”.
5. What is “a positive correlation” ?
6. I should like the distinguished authors to explain some of the interesting data presented in Table 6. E.g., lines 1 and 3. here is a “negative correlation” Isn’t it? (lines 318-319). The hardness increases, however, abrasivity coefficient decreases.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors improved the manuscript quality by accepting the reviewer's recommendations and comments. The reviewer recommends its acceptance for publishing in Coatings.
