Fabrication, Experimental Investigation and Prediction of Wear Behavior of Open-Cell AlSi10Mg-SiC Composite Materials
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript "Fabrication, Experimental Investigation and Prediction of Wear Behavior of Open-Cell AlSi10Mg-SiC Composite Materials" need following correctionss:
1) Prediction with minimum experimental result not concluding as per the explanation.
2)Wear behaviour is based on what is shown in the SEM micrograph. Which is not reflecting as per the experimental procedure and explanation.
3) Figure 3 b , wear is not there. Wear direction and wear track to be shown.
4) Other elements in EDS explaning what?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your kind comments and suggestions about our manuscript with the title “Fabrication, Experimental Investigation and Prediction of Wear Behavior of Open-Cell AlSi10Mg-SiC Composite Materials”. It would help us to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have inspected the whole manuscript and tried our best to revise carefully according to your comments in our revised version of the manuscript.
1) Prediction with minimum experimental result not concluding as per the explanation.
Response: Thank you for your feedback. We understand your concern regarding the use of machine learning algorithms for prediction with minimum experimental results. While we acknowledge that the dataset used in this study is relatively small, we would like to emphasize that our aim was to demonstrate the potential of machine learning algorithms in predicting the tribological behavior of AlSi10Mg-SiC composites, specifically in terms of coefficient of friction and mass wear. Our results show that even with a limited dataset, machine learning can provide valuable insights into the behavior of these materials.
Furthermore, we have noted that we plan to expand our dataset and explore correlations between technological and experimental variables based on the insights gained from this manuscript. This will enable us to refine and improve our predictive model, and achieve more accurate and reliable predictions in the future.
We hope this clarifies our approach and we welcome any further feedback or suggestions you may have.
2)Wear behaviour is based on what is shown in the SEM micrograph. Which is not reflecting as per the experimental procedure and explanation.
Response: Based on the experimental procedure and explanation provided in the manuscript, the SEM micrographs were used to investigate the wear mechanisms of the AlSi10Mg-SiC composites. The wear parameters, such as mass wear and coefficient of friction, were evaluated using the pin-on-disk method under dry sliding friction conditions. The SEM images were used to observe the worn surfaces, which were used to identify the wear mechanisms.
We believe that the SEM images provide valuable information about the wear behavior of the composites, which can complement the wear parameter measurements. While the wear parameters provide quantitative data on the wear behavior, the SEM images allow for a qualitative analysis of the wear mechanisms and can help to identify the factors that contribute to the observed wear behavior.
We have included more details in the Characterization Methods section to clarify the use of SEM images in investigating the wear mechanisms and how they complement the wear parameter measurements. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and please let us know if you have any further questions or concerns.
3) Figure 3 b , wear is not there. Wear direction and wear track to be shown.
Response: Based on the reviewer's comment, it appears that there is some confusion regarding the content of Figure 3b. We would like to clarify that Figure 3b shows the SEM image of the worn surface of the AlSi10Mg-SiC composite, and it was included to provide visual information on the microstructure of the worn surface. We agree with the reviewer's suggestion to include information on the wear direction and wear track in this figure, and we will revise the figure accordingly. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
4) Other elements in EDS explaning what?
Response: Thank you for your feedback. As suggested by the reviewer, we have revised tables 3 and 4 by removing Mg, Cu and Mn. We believe that this will improve the readability and focus of the tables, and we appreciate the reviewer's helpful suggestion.
Once again, we appreciate your comments and suggestions, which have helped to improve the quality of our manuscript. We hope that the revisions we have made have adequately addressed your concerns and we remain available for any further feedback or questions you may have.
Reviewer 2 Report
Open-cell porous materials (ceramics, metals and also composites) are currently intensively studied due to their many beneficial properties.
The manuscript is in general well written and interesting for readers, however some results are missing. This is a continuation of the previous studies conducted by the authors, which has been indicated in the references.
Obtained results are presented in a quite clear way. However, I have some comments/questions:
1. What was the volume fraction of the SiC in skeletons?
2. What was the distribution of SiC in the composite skeletons? It would be useful show the LM/SEM composite images before tribological tests and at a lower magnification.
3. The roughness of discs was given. What was the roughness of the pins?
4. The hardness of the specimens should be measured.
5. What is the potential area of Al/SiC open-cell porous composites application due to the tribological properties determined using the pin-on-disk method?
6. Do the results have only cognitive (but the favorable tribological properties of Al/SiC composites are well known and described, as well as the wear mechanisms) or also applicable character?
7. In introduction, line 93: There is: "...Kota et al. [39] fabricated Al-Si/SiC interpenetrating phase composites by infiltrating SiC..." it should be changed. The ref. [39] is review article in which the author describes current status and applications of IPCs, discusses the various processing routes for fabricating open porous ceramic preforms and melt infiltration techniques based on the results of other authors.
8. In references: ref. [12] should be corrected, more data needs to be added.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are truly grateful for your thoughtful comments and valuable suggestions regarding our manuscript titled “Fabrication, Experimental Investigation and Prediction of Wear Behavior of Open-Cell AlSi10Mg-SiC Composite Materials”. Your feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work, and we appreciate your effort in helping us improve our manuscript. We have thoroughly reviewed the entire manuscript and carefully incorporated your comments in the revised version.
1) What was the volume fraction of the SiC in skeletons?
Response: Thank you for your question regarding the volume fraction of SiC in the composite skeletons. Although X-ray diffraction (XRD) or image analysis could have been done, we know from a preliminary analysis that the visible phase in addition to the aluminum alloy is SiC. Therefore, we do not expect any changes in the volume fraction of SiC in the composite skeletons.
2) What was the distribution of SiC in the composite skeletons? It would be useful show the LM/SEM composite images before tribological tests and at a lower magnification.
Response: In the materials and methods section, we have provided information that the ceramic particles account for 5 wt. % of the composite materials. We consider that there is no reason to expect any changes in composite composition during samples preparation and because the volume content of SiC in the AlSi10Mg + SiC composite is known (5 wt. %) we have not presented microstructure pictures. In addition, we have presented a low magnification SEM image of the post-tribological test of the composite in our manuscript. This was included to provide information on the wear direction and wear track, which were not seen in the higher magnification SEM image of the composite.
3) The roughness of discs was given. What was the roughness of the pins?
Response: Thanks for your question regarding the roughness of the pins. The composite material has a high porosity with pore sizes ranging from 800-1000 μm. Measuring the roughness of such porous materials can be challenging due to the complex surface morphology and the influence of pores on the contact area and the sensor response. However, to the best of our knowledge, the roughness of the pins was not measured or reported in our manuscript, as it was not relevant to the research question or the experimental design.
4) The hardness of the specimens should be measured.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion regarding the hardness measurement. We appreciate your valuable feedback. We plan to include the hardness measurement in our future study, where we will investigate the mechanical properties of the same composite. Once again, we thank you for your helpful comments.
5) What is the potential area of Al/SiC open-cell porous composites application due to the tribological properties determined using the pin-on-disk method?
Response: Thank you for your feedback. We agree that the potential applications of Al/SiC open-cell porous composites are important to consider, and we have noted this in the conclusions of our manuscript. However, we would like to emphasize that the results presented in our study are preliminary, and further research is needed to fully understand the potential applications of these materials. As such, it is important to note that we are still far from practical application at this stage. Additionally, we intend to investigate the mechanical properties of these composites in future studies, which will provide further insight into their potential applications.
6) Do the results have only cognitive (but the favorable tribological properties of Al/SiC composites are well known and described, as well as the wear mechanisms) or also applicable character?
Response: Thank you for your question. We agree that the tribological properties of Al/SiC composites are well known and have been previously described in the literature. However, our study is focused on the specific Al/SiC open-cell porous composites and their tribological properties, which have not been extensively investigated before, particularly for composites with pores of the size range of 800 ÷ 1000 μm, and produced using the specific technology and methods employed in our study. The results presented in our study are based on experimental data and are not just cognitive, but they are still preliminary and further research is needed to fully understand the potential applications of these materials. Therefore, while the results are promising, we cannot yet draw any definitive conclusions regarding the practical applications of these composites. We do believe that our study contributes to the existing knowledge on Al/SiC composites and their tribological properties, and it provides new insights into the potential applications of open-cell porous composites in particular. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify these points and thank the reviewer for his feedback.
7) In introduction, line 93: There is: "...Kota et al. [39] fabricated Al-Si/SiC interpenetrating phase composites by infiltrating SiC..." it should be changed. The ref. [39] is review article in which the author describes current status and applications of IPCs, discusses the various processing routes for fabricating open porous ceramic preforms and melt infiltration techniques based on the results of other authors.
Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have already revised the introduction to better reflect the content of the reference [39]. Thank you again for bringing this to our attention and helping us improve the accuracy of our manuscript.
8) In references: ref. [12] should be corrected, more data needs to be added.
Response: Thank you for pointing out the error in our reference [12]. We have revised it and included the necessary additional data. We appreciate your feedback and attention to detail.
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our article. We sincerely appreciate your feedback and suggestions, which have helped us to improve the quality of our research. Your comments and insights have been valuable and will contribute to the advancement of our field. We hope to have the opportunity to receive your feedback in the future.
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer comments on manuscript: “Fabrication, Experimental Investigation and Prediction of Wear Behavior of Open-Cell AlSi10Mg-SiC Composite Materials”
The reviewed manuscript may be published after major revision.
The reviewed manuscript is very interesting, it refers to experimental investigation of mass wear and coefficient of friction measurement of AlSi10Mg – SiC open-cell composite material. Values are compared with AlSi10Mg material. In the manuscript fabrication method of those open-cell composites was also described. In the article machine learning methods also were used in order to predict coefficient of friction evolution.
Reviewer has noticed some issues in the text which should be cleared (numbers stands for line number in manuscript):
Figures: please correct quality of the images: text can is difficult to read
209: please referee to source which describe used ML methods in details
296: the composition should be verified at the point 1, as it appears from the image 3b that it was taken from SiC particle surface
305: what was measurement error for coefficient of friction? Error bar is visible, but numerical value would give more understanding
Paragraph 3.3: please uniform the form of variables in all of the equations
334: abbreviation for those models was introduced earlier
346: why “i” index isn’t explained
348: large sigma is worldwide used symbol, mustn’t be explained
358: Are the symbol meaning the same as in eq. 1? If yes it is not necessary to repeat their definitions. Why the definitions differs?
368: there is no “i” index in the formula
Figure 7: What is the meaning of CF parameter? If coefficient of friction than before it was denoted COF.
The reviewer would like to ask additional question.
How was AlSi10Mg samples prepared?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript titled “Fabrication, Experimental Investigation and Prediction of Wear Behavior of Open-Cell AlSi10Mg-SiC Composite Materials”. Your insights have been of great assistance in improving the overall quality of our work. We have thoroughly examined your feedback and has made all necessary revisions to ensure that the revised manuscript meets the highest standards of excellence. Thank you for taking the time to review our work and providing us with such insightful feedback.
1) Figures: please correct quality of the images: text can is difficult to read
Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have revised the quality of the SEM images to improve the legibility of the text. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the initial low quality of the images, and we hope that the revised figures are now easier to interpret.
2) 209: please referee to source which describe used ML methods in details
Response: Certainly, we appreciate your suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer the sources describing the used ML methods in details are added.
3) 296: the composition should be verified at the point 1, as it appears from the image 3b that it was taken from SiC particle surface
Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have revised the manuscript to clarify that the composition was verified at point 1, as it appears from the image 3b that it was taken from the SiC particle surface. We appreciate your feedback and your efforts to improve the accuracy of our work.
4) 305: what was measurement error for coefficient of friction? Error bar is visible, but numerical value would give more understanding
Response: Thank you for your comment. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have included the numerical values of the measurement errors for the coefficient of friction data in the text to provide more detailed information on the precision of our measurements. These values provide more detailed information on the precision of our measurements. We apologize for not including this information in the original manuscript.
5) Paragraph 3.3: please uniform the form of variables in all of the equations
Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We appreciate your feedback and we have revised the manuscript accordingly to ensure that the form of variables is consistent throughout all the equations in Paragraph 3.3. We believe that these revisions will improve the clarity and readability of the manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable input.
6) 334: abbreviation for those models was introduced earlier
Response: As suggested by the reviewer the names of the models were replaced by their abbreviations.
7) 346: why “i” index isn’t explained
8) 348: large sigma is worldwide used symbol, mustn’t be explained
9) 358: Are the symbol meaning the same as in eq. 1? If yes it is not necessary to repeat their definitions. Why the definitions differs?
10) 368: there is no “i” index in the formula
Response to questions (7 – 10): Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to your suggestions (7-10), including the formulas. We have addressed the issues raised regarding the symbols and indices used in the formulas, and we have made the necessary revisions to ensure consistency and clarity throughout the manuscript.
11) Figure 7: What is the meaning of CF parameter? If coefficient of friction than before it was denoted COF.
Response: Thank you for your question about Figure 7. We apologize for any confusion caused by the use of the CF parameter. CF does represent the coefficient of friction, which we have now corrected to the commonly accepted symbol COF in the revised version of the manuscript.
12) How was AlSi10Mg samples prepared?
Response: Certainly, we appreciate your comment. The preparation of the AlSi10Mg samples was not mentioned in the Production Method and Materials section, and we apologize for this oversight. The preparation of the test specimens was included in the revised version of the Characterization Methods section. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Thank you once again for your valuable feedback and suggestions, which have greatly improved the quality of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Can be accepted.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for use my comments to improve quality of your manuscript.
