Design of an Ultra-Thick Film and Its Friction and Wear Performance under Different Working Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors presented an article «Study on the tribological properties of an ultra-thick film». The authors are advised to consider the following comments for this paper.
· Abstract
The abstract need to be improved. The abstract is written complicated and long. Core findings of the study should be given. Please provide the main quantitative and qualitative research core findings. Demonstrate in the abstract novelty, practical significance. Briefly list the input and output parameters of the research.
· Introduction
Seemingly, a comprehensive literature review was given. However, they were just summarized one- by-one. The authors have to stop after writing each example and think about the contributions and lack of knowledge for each paper. After that, in the final lines of the introduction give the blank spots of the topic. Then it will be clear what did authors make differently from the open literature. More references should be included certainly the reference.
· 2. Preparation and characterization
A experimental set-up and measurement equipment’s photo would be more useful to the reader.
What are the standards used in the experiments?
· 3. Results and Discussion
The results obtained should be explained by supporting the literature.
Font “Residual stress” in Table 2 is not appropriate.
The texts of Figure 5 and 6 are not readable. Higher quality Figure should be preferred.
Units should be given according to SI throughout the article. There are many errors.
· Conclusions
The conclusions need to be improved. The results are written long. It is necessary to more clearly show the novelty of the article. Add qualitative and quantitative results of your work. What is the difference from previous work in this area? Show practical relevance. What are the differences from previous works?
· Authors should carefully study the comments and make improvements to the article step by step. All changes should be highlighted in color.
Author Response
Point 1: Abstract
The abstract need to be improved. The abstract is written complicated and long. Core findings of the study should be given. Please provide the main quantitative and qualitative research core findings. Demonstrate in the abstract novelty, practical significance. Briefly list the input and output parameters of the research.
Response 1: The abstract has been condensed,
Point 2: Introduction
Seemingly, a comprehensive literature review was given. However, they were just summarized one- by-one. The authors have to stop after writing each example and think about the contributions and lack of knowledge for each paper. After that, in the final lines of the introduction give the blank spots of the topic. Then it will be clear what did authors make differently from the open literature. More references should be included certainly the reference.
Response 2: The last line of the introduction provides a blank space for the topic.
Point 3:
Preparation and characterization
A experimental set-up and measurement equipment’s photo would be more useful to the reader.
What are the standards used in the experiments?
Response 3: The standards applied in the experiment were explained.
Point 4: Results and Discussion
The results obtained should be explained by supporting the literature.
Font “Residual stress” in Table 2 is not appropriate.
The texts of Figure 5 and 6 are not readable. Higher quality Figure should be preferred.
Units should be given according to SI throughout the article. There are many errors.
Response 4: The font for residual stress in Table 2 has been changed. Figures 5 and 6 become clearer. The units in the text have been changed.
Point 5: Conclusions
The conclusions need to be improved. The results are written long. It is necessary to more clearly show the novelty of the article. Add qualitative and quantitative results of your work. What is the difference from previous work in this area? Show practical relevance. What are the differences from previous works?
Response 5: The conclusion has been improved and quantitative analysis has been added, highlighting novelty.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article has a scientific character. The article deals with tribological properties of an ultra-thick film. The Authors applied correct research methods and used the appropriate measuring equipment. The content of the work is logically written but contains little detail. The manuscript contains 13 figures and 2 tables. Figures and tables aren't properly prepared. Authors cited 26 literature sources. Insufficient number of literature items. The authors presented an interesting work, but it requires numerous improvements to be of satisfactory quality.
1. The authors must clearly indicate the novelty of the work compared to the current state of the art; describe practical applications of these coatings.
2. Specify the data of the apparatus in the article in the following order: device designation, manufacturer's name, city, country.
3. In general, improve the discussion of the results obtained
4. The work also requires careful text editing, numerous editing errors in the text.
5. The quality of all drawings in the work should be improved, first of all, they should be enlarged, as they are difficult to read.
6. Conclusions in Conclusion should be given in the form of points
7. In the Introduction, make a detailed review of the tribological properties of coatings of similar thickness and type as tested.
8. In chapter 2, present the test method in detail (e.g. parameters of the tribological test, concentration of the liquid for tribological tests or the method of determining the residual stress are missing) and the method of producing the coatings; the current description is too general.
9. Fig. 1a is unnecessary (remove it), nothing can be seen on it.
10. Table 2 explain the abbreviations used: H, E H/E and others and specify the coating thicknesses; for the given values in Tab. 2 enter the measurement uncertainty
11. Figure 4 - is the TTTD movie an ultra-thick movie? Correct the description under the drawing if it is a different type of coating
12. Fig. 7 Add error bars.
13. Explain in the text what the description of the "Frequency" horizontal axis in Fig. 5-7 follows.
14. In the diagram (Fig. 12) you have shown cracks in the DLC layer, prove it by showing the corresponding drawing; did the cracks from the DLC layer not reach the substrate?
15. Chapter 3.5 Add surface profilograms and indicate typical damage.
16. Use the MDPI article template in your manuscript.
17. Instead of providing formulas in a paragraph, present them in accordance with the rules for presenting formulas.
Author Response
Point 1: The authors must clearly indicate the novelty of the work compared to the current state of the art; describe practical applications of these coatings.
Response 1: The novelty of the work compared to the current state of the art and practical applications of these coatings are described.
Point 2: Specify the data of the apparatus in the article in the following order: device designation, manufacturer's name, city, country.
Response 2: The data of the apparatus in the article is improved.
Point 3:In general, improve the discussion of the results obtained
Response 3: The discussions of the results obtained are improved.
Point 4: The work also requires careful text editing, numerous editing errors in the text.
Response 4: The editing errors in the article have been corrected.
Point 5: The quality of all drawings in the work should be improved, first of all, they should be enlarged, as they are difficult to read.
Response 5: The quality of all drawings in the work is improved.
Point 6: Conclusions in Conclusion should be given in the form of points.
Response 6: Conclusions in Conclusion are given in the form of points.
Point 7: In the Introduction, make a detailed review of the tribological properties of coatings of similar thickness and type as tested.
Response 7: In the introduction, the friction and wear properties of thin films with a structure similar to that of this article were reviewed.
Point 8: In chapter 2, present the test method in detail (e.g. parameters of the tribological test, concentration of the liquid for tribological tests or the method of determining the residual stress are missing) and the method of producing the coatings; the current description is too general.
Response 8: The testing methods in Chapter 2 have been further improved.
Point 9: Fig. 1a is unnecessary (remove it), nothing can be seen on it.
Response 9: Figure 1a shows the surface morphology of the TTTD film, which shows no contrast after removal. Therefore, I kept it.
Point 10: Table 2 explain the abbreviations used: H, E H/E and others and specify the coating thicknesses; for the given values in Tab. 2 enter the measurement uncertainty.
Response 10: The data in Table 2 are the average values obtained from three measurements.
Point 11: Figure 4 - is the TTTD movie an ultra-thick movie? Correct the description under the drawing if it is a different type of coating.
Response 11: Corrected the description under Figure 4.
Point 12: Fig. 7 Add error bars.
Response 12: Error bars are added.
Point 13: Explain in the text what the description of the "Frequency" horizontal axis in Fig. 5-7 follows.
Response 13: The horizontal axis of "frequency" in Figures 5-7 is described in the text.
Point 14: In the diagram (Fig. 12) you have shown cracks in the DLC layer, prove it by showing the corresponding drawing; did the cracks from the DLC layer not reach the substrate?
Response 14: The cracks in the DLC layer are only inferred through the observation of wear scar morphology, and the corresponding figure is the wear scar morphology map. The crack reached the base and Figure 12 was modified.
Point 15: Chapter 3.5 Add surface profilograms and indicate typical damage.
Response 15: Surface profilograms and typical damage are added.
Point 16: Use the MDPI article template in your manuscript.
Response 16: Use the MDPI article template in manuscript.
Point 17: Instead of providing formulas in a paragraph, present them in accordance with the rules for presenting formulas.
Response 17: Present formulas in accordance with the rules for presenting formulas.
Reviewer 3 Report
This work presents and experimental investigation of friction and wear characteristics of Ta/Ti/TiN/Ti/DLC and Ta/Ti/TiN/TiCuN/Ti/DLC through scanning electron microscopy, nanoindentation, Raman spectroscopy, and friction wear test rigs. The manuscript is clear and well-written. The work is novel and the proposed results are interesting. I have no objection against publication. Nonetheless, below are some minor suggestions for improvement:
1- Line 67: The “-3” should be a superscript.
2- Figure 2: I suggest switching figures a and b, out of consistency with figure 1. Adding the names of the layers on each layer would also be helpful.
3- Line 103: “Figure 2” should be “Figure 3”
4- Figure 3: The caption should specify what figures a and b represent (it is neither stated in the text, nor the figure caption). Also, the legend of figure a uses the term “band”, while that of figure b uses “peak”. Use the same terminology, out of consistency.
5- Line 139: The “-1” should be a superscript.
6- Figures 5 and 6: Use the same y-scale in all subfigures.
7- Figure 7: There’s something wrong with this figure. The figure caption suggests that sub-figure a is for TTTD and sub-figure b is for Ultra-Thick Film, but then, within each sub-figure both are there (TTTD in yellow and Ultra Thick Film in green).
8- Figures 10 and 11 are not mentioned or discussed in the text.
Author Response
Point 1: Line 67: The “-3” should be a superscript.
Response 1: Change -3 to superscript.
Point 2: Figure 2: I suggest switching figures a and b, out of consistency with figure 1. Adding the names of the layers on each layer would also be helpful.
Response 2: Figure 2: I switch figures a and b. Add the names of the layers on each layer.
Point 3: Line 103: “Figure 2” should be “Figure 3”
Response 3: Change “Figure 2” to “Figure 3”.
Point 4: Figure 3: The caption should specify what figures a and b represent (it is neither stated in the text, nor the figure caption). Also, the legend of figure a uses the term “band”, while that of figure b uses “peak”. Use the same terminology, out of consistency.
Response 4: Figures 3a and b are described in the text. The figure caption is improved. Replace “band” with “peak”.
Point 5: Line 139: The “-1” should be a superscript.
Response 5: Change -1 to superscript.
Point 6: Figures 5 and 6: Use the same y-scale in all subfigures.
Response 6: Use the same y-scale in Figures 5 and 6.
Point 7: Figure 7: There’s something wrong with this figure. The figure caption suggests that sub-figure a is for TTTD and sub-figure b is for Ultra-Thick Film, but then, within each sub-figure both are there (TTTD in yellow and Ultra Thick Film in green).
Response 7: The annotation in Figure 7 has been corrected
Point 8: Figures 10 and 11 are not mentioned or discussed in the text.
Response 8: Figures 10 and 11 are discussed in the text.
Reviewer 4 Report
No novelty could be seen from the title and the topic is so general. There is no proper discussion on obtained results and this technical issue could be also found in the low number of references. These points lead to rejection of the manuscript. Other comments could be found as follows,
1) The title is so general. No novelty could be found in the title.
2) All abbreviations must be defined at first mention, such as DLC, etc.
3) No quantitative results could be seen in the abstract.
4) The abstract is lengthy. Only highlighted results must be mentioned.
5) No abbreviations must be used in keywords. Then also, they must be found in the abstract or the title.
6) There is no proper literature review. Moreover, the novelty must be highlighted in the introduction compared to the literature review.
7) All process parameters need references, such as 800 V, 20 min, 40 min, 3.5 h, pH of 5, etc.
8) What was the standard for wear testing? The device and the sample must be introduced.
9) What was the wear distance? More details of wear testing must be mentioned.
10) All features must be mentioned on the SEM images, such as adhesive, abrasive, debris, etc. Moreover, nothing could be found in Figure 1(a).
11) From Figure 2, the average value should be reported plus the standard deviation.
12) Figure 3 must be enlarged. The numbers could not be seen!
13) For 3.3, it is better to use the wear behavior instead of mechanical properties.
14) What is the repeatability of testing in Figure 4? This issue must be considered for values in Table 2.
15) Again, no repeatability of testing could be seen in Figure 5! The numbers and values are not clear. The vertical axis should have a similar value for a better comparison. These issues could be seen in Figure 6.
16) In Figure 6, the dry friction was not reported. It must be reported for a better comparison.
17) An average value plus the standard deviation must be reported in a table for the comparison of CoF.
18) The standard deviation must be reported in Figure 7. The vertical axis must have similar values. What was the environment for these results?
19) Only reporting the EDX analysis is not enough. SEM images from the worn surfaces must be reported with their features. What was the change in wear mechanisms? Not clear.
20) The discussion is generally poor. This technical issue could be found in the low number of references. Obtained results must be compared to other results of other articles.
21) The conclusion must be rewritten one by one in bullets, to show the novelty.
22) No quantitative results could be seen in the conclusions.
23) The "conclusion" must be changed to "conclusions".
24) References must be extended and updated based on recent articles, published in 2017-2023.
Author Response
Point 1: The title is so general. No novelty could be found in the title.
Response 1: In order to increase novelty, change the title of the article to “Design of an ultra-thick film and its friction and wear performance under different working conditions”.
Point 2: All abbreviations must be defined at first mention, such as DLC, etc.
Response 2: All abbreviations are defined at first mention.
Point 3:No quantitative results could be seen in the abstract.
Response 3: The data results have been added to the summary.
Point 4: The abstract is lengthy. Only highlighted results must be mentioned.
Response 4: The abstract has been condensed.
Point 5: No abbreviations must be used in keywords. Then also, they must be found in the abstract or the title.
Response 5: The keywords have been changed.
Point 6: There is no proper literature review. Moreover, the novelty must be highlighted in the introduction compared to the literature review.
Response 6: A comparison was made between previous literature reviews and the experimental results of this article, and novelty was expressed.
Point 7: All process parameters need references, such as 800 V, 20 min, 40 min, 3.5 h, pH of 5, etc.
Response 7: These parameters are all reference literature, such as the title " Effect of working pressure on structure and properties of Si/O-DLC films deposited on inner wall of the tube ".
Point 8: What was the standard for wear testing? The device and the sample must be introduced.
Response 8: The standards and equipment for wear experiments were introduced.
Point 9: What was the wear distance? More details of wear testing must be mentioned.
Response 9: More details of wear testing are mentioned,such as wear distance.
Point 10: All features must be mentioned on the SEM images, such as adhesive, abrasive, debris, etc. Moreover, nothing could be found in Figure 1(a).
Response 10: Feature is mentioned in Figure 1 (a).
Point 11: From Figure 2, the average value should be reported plus the standard deviation.
Response 11: The data in Figure 2 is the average value after three measurements.
Point 12: Figure 3 must be enlarged. The numbers could not be seen!
Response 12: Figure 3 is enlarged.
Point 13: For 3.3, it is better to use the wear behavior instead of mechanical properties.
Response 13: Use the wear behavior instead of mechanical properties.
Point 14: What is the repeatability of testing in Figure 4? This issue must be considered for values in Table 2.
Response 14: The repeatability of the experiment in Figure 4 is 3 times.
Point 15: Again, no repeatability of testing could be seen in Figure 5! The numbers and values are not clear. The vertical axis should have a similar value for a better comparison. These issues could be seen in Figure 6.
Response 15: The y-axis in Figures 5 and 6 has been changed to the same value and the image has been enlarged.
Point 16: In Figure 6, the dry friction was not reported. It must be reported for a better comparison.
Response 16: The friction coefficient curve under dry friction is supplemented in Figure 6.
Point 17: An average value plus the standard deviation must be reported in a table for the comparison of CoF.
Response 17: The average and deviation of the friction coefficient are plotted in Figure 7.
Point 18: The standard deviation must be reported in Figure 7. The vertical axis must have similar values. What was the environment for these results?
Response 18: The standard deviation is reported in Figure 7. The environment for these results is given.
Point 19: Only reporting the EDX analysis is not enough. SEM images from the worn surfaces must be reported with their features. What was the change in wear mechanisms? Not clear.
Response 19: Other characterizations of the worn surface are ongoing and will be further analyzed in the future.
Point 20: The discussion is generally poor. This technical issue could be found in the low number of references. Obtained results must be compared to other results of other articles.
Response 20: The conclusion was rediscussed.
Point 21: The conclusion must be rewritten one by one in bullets, to show the novelty.
Response 21: The conclusions are rewritten one by one in bullets.
Point 22: No quantitative results could be seen in the conclusions.
Response 22: Quantitative results were added to the conclusion.
Point 23: The "conclusion" must be changed to "conclusions".
Response 23: The "conclusion" is changed to "conclusions".
Point 24: References must be extended and updated based on recent articles, published in 2017-2023.
Response 24: The references have been expanded and updated.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for considering my comments. I will recommend the publication of the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear reviewer：
Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
1) "Gpa" should be changed to "GPa".
2) The novelty is not highlighted in the introduction, compared to the literature review.
3) No references were added for the process parameters. It is not acceptable only to answer the comments. They must be addressed in the text.
4) No mentioned standard could be seen for wear testing!
5) More features must be reported on the SEM image in Figure 1. What are white lines? What are white points? Not clear!
6) Point 11: From Figure 2, the average value should be reported plus the standard deviation. (Not done!)
7) Point 12: Figure 3 must be enlarged. The numbers could not be seen! (Not done properly!)
8) Point 14: What is the repeatability of testing in Figure 4? This issue must be considered for values in Table 2. (Not reported!)
9) The quality of the figures is so low! No values could be seen!
10) In Figure 6, no description was added in the title for part (c).
11) Point 19: Only reporting the EDX analysis is not enough. SEM images from the worn surfaces must be reported with their features. What was the change in wear mechanisms? Not clear. (Not done!)
12) The discussion is still poor and it is not related to the conclusions. That must be done in the results part. Without comparing to other results of other articles, the manuscript is not proper for publication. This is a technical issue that must be addressed.
13) References were not extended! They must be at least 35 articles for a proper discussion.
Author Response
The modifications were highlighted in red.
Point 1: "Gpa" should be changed to "GPa".
Response 1: Change Gpa to GPa.
Point 2: The novelty is not highlighted in the introduction, compared to the literature review.
Response 2: The novelty is highlighted in the introduction.
Point 3: No references were added for the process parameters. It is not acceptable only to answer the comments. They must be addressed in the text.
Response 3: References were added for the process parameters.
Point 4: No mentioned standard could be seen for wear testing!
Response 4: The standards for wear testing have been supplemented.
Point 5: More features must be reported on the SEM image in Figure 1. What are white lines? What are white points? Not clear!
Response 5: The white lines and dots in Figure 1 are described in the text.
Point 6: Point 11: From Figure 2, the average value should be reported plus the standard deviation. (Not done!)
Response 6: The average and standard deviation are reported in Figure 2.
Point 7: Point 12: Figure 3 must be enlarged. The numbers could not be seen! (Not done properly!)
Response 7: Figure 3 has been enlarged.
Point 8: Point 14: What is the repeatability of testing in Figure 4? This issue must be considered for values in Table 2. (Not reported!)
Response 8: The repeatability of the test in Figure 4 is described in the text.
Point 9: The quality of the figures is so low! No values could be seen!
Response 9: The image has been enlarged.
Point 10: In Figure 6, no description was added in the title for part (c).
Response 10: The title of (c) in Figure 6 has been supplemented.
Point 11: Point 19: Only reporting the EDX analysis is not enough. SEM images from the worn surfaces must be reported with their features. What was the change in wear mechanisms? Not clear. (Not done!)
Response 11: Hello reviewer, further experiments are underway. Raman and XPS experiments are currently being conducted on the worn area, and these experiments and analyses have not been fully completed. The wear mechanism is currently only some speculation. The wear mechanism was analyzed in the wear mechanism section of the article.
Point 12: The discussion is still poor and it is not related to the conclusions. That must be done in the results part. Without comparing to other results of other articles, the manuscript is not proper for publication. This is a technical issue that must be addressed.
Response 12: The results were compared with other literature. At the same time, make the discussion relevant to the conclusion.
Point 13: References were not extended! They must be at least 35 articles for a proper discussion.
Response 13: The references have been expanded to 35.
