Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to prepare Ti(C,N) coatings on TA15 treated and not treated by shot peening using double glow plasma alloying technique. The effect of shot peening on the wear behavior of Ti(C,N) coatings is discussed.Design/methodology/approach - The Ti(C,N) coatings were prepared by double glow plasma alloying technique on two different TA15 substrate; one is shot peened and the other is not.Findings - Ti(C,N) coating on SP-treated TA15 was thicker and denser, and the grain size was smaller compared with that on original TA15. Compared with the Ti(C,N) coating on original TA15, the wear resistance of that on SP-treated TA15 is improved. Ti(C,N) coating on SP-treated TA15 showed higher nanohardness and bearing capacity than that on original TA15.Originality/value - For double glow plasma alloying technique, surface quality, surface activity and other factors will have influence on the thickness and density of the coating. The wear mechanisms of Ti(C,N) coating on original TA15 are serious abrasive wear and oxidation wear. However, the wear mechanism of Ti(C,N) coating on SP-treated TA15 is slightly oxidation wear.


Authors

Xue, Lin;  Miao, Qiang;  Liang, Wenping;  Zhao, Hui;  Shi, Weiwei;  Zuo, Shiwei;  Ma, Hanchun

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author

No Publons users have claimed this paper.

  • pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2020/11/27

    27-Nov-2020

    Dear Xue, Lin; Miao, Qiang; Liang, Wenping; Zhao, Hui; Shi, Weiwei; Zuo, Shiwei; Ma, Hanchun

    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript ilt-07-2020-0283.R4, entitled "Effect of shot peening on the wear behavior of Ti(C,N) coating on TA15 alloy prepared by double glow plasma carbonitriding" in its current form for publication in Industrial Lubrication and Tribology. Please note, no further changes can be made to your manuscript.

    Please go to your Author Centre at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ilt (Manuscripts with Decisions for the submitting author or Manuscripts I have co-authored for all listed co-authors) to complete the Copyright Transfer Agreement form (CTA). We cannot publish your paper without this.

    All authors are requested to complete the form and to input their full contact details. If any of the contact information is incorrect you can update it by clicking on your name at the top right of the screen. Please note that this must be done prior to you submitting your CTA.

    If you have an ORCID please check your account details to ensure that your ORCID is validated.

    By publishing in this journal your work will benefit from Emerald EarlyCite. As soon as your CTA is completed your manuscript will pass to Emerald’s Content Management department and be processed for EarlyCite publication. EarlyCite is the author proofed, typeset version of record, fully citable by DOI. The EarlyCite article sits outside of a journal issue and is paginated in isolation. The EarlyCite article will be collated into a journal issue according to the journals’ publication schedule.

    FOR OPEN ACCESS AUTHORS: Please note if you have indicated that you would like to publish your article as Open Access via Emerald’s Gold Open Access route, you are required to complete a Creative Commons Attribution Licence - CCBY 4.0 (in place of the standard copyright assignment form referenced above). You will receive a follow up email within the next 30 days with a link to the CCBY licence and information regarding payment of the Article Processing Charge. If you have indicated that you might be eligible for a prepaid APC voucher, you will also be informed at this point if a voucher is available to you (for more information on APC vouchers please see http://www.emeraldpublishing.com/oapartnerships

    Thank you for your contribution. On behalf of the Editors of Industrial Lubrication and Tribology, we look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal.

    Sincerely,
    Prof. Carsten Gachot
    Editor, Industrial Lubrication and Tribology
    carsten.gachot@tuwien.ac.at

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/11/27

    -

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/11/27

    Ok now

    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2020/11/27

    Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: Response to comment: (In page 6 average and error values must have the same amount of significant figures, e.g. 1.53 +- 0.21 um.) Response: We are sorry that we didn't understand your suggestion correctly, which caused unnecessary trouble. We have made the appropriate corrections according to your example。



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 4)
    Decision Letter
    2020/11/26

    26-Nov-2020

    Dear Dr. Miao:

    Manuscript ID ilt-07-2020-0283.R3 entitled "Effect of shot peening on the wear behavior of Ti(C,N) coating on TA15 alloy prepared by double glow plasma carbonitriding" which you submitted to the Industrial Lubrication and Tribology, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    The reviewer(s) have recommended revisions to the submitted manuscript, before it can be considered for publication. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript.

    To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ilt and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre. The deadline for uploading a revised manuscript is 26-Dec-2020 from receiving this email. If it is not possible for you to resubmit your revision within this timeframe, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Please note that Emerald requires you to clear permission to re-use any material not created by you. If there are permissions outstanding, please send these to Emerald as soon as possible. Emerald is unable to publish your paper with permissions outstanding.

    To help support you on your publishing journey we have partnered with Editage, a leading global science communication platform, to offer expert editorial support including language editing and translation.
    If your article has been rejected or revisions have been requested, you may benefit from Editage’s services. For a full list of services, visit: authorservices.emeraldpublishing.com/
    Please note that there is no obligation to use Editage and using this service does not guarantee publication.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Industrial Lubrication and Tribology and I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Sincerely,
    Prof. Carsten Gachot
    Editor, Industrial Lubrication and Tribology
    carsten.gachot@tuwien.ac.at

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Comments to the Author
    In page 6 average and error values must have the same amount of significant figures, e.g. 1.53 +- 0.21 um

    Reviewer: 2

    Comments to the Author
    The manuscript has been noticeably improved since the 1st version and authors have made big efforts.
    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    In page 6 average and error values must have the same amount of significant figures, e.g. 1.53 +- 0.21 um

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Yes

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any signficant work ignored?: Yes

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: Yes

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Yes, but in page 6 average and error values must have the same amount of significant figures, e.g. 1.53 +- 0.21 um

    Practicality and/or Research implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent withthe findings and conclusions of the paper?: Yes

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Yes

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no. All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Accept

    Comments:
    The manuscript has been noticeably improved since the 1st version and authors have made big efforts.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Yes

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any signficant work ignored?: Yes

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: Yes

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Yes

    Practicality and/or Research implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent withthe findings and conclusions of the paper?: Yes

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Yes

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no. All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/11/26

    In page 6 average and error values must have the same amount of significant figures, e.g. 1.53 +- 0.21 um

    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/11/26

    The manuscript has been noticeably improved since the 1st version and authors have made big efforts.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2020/11/26

    Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effect of Al-Y Gradient Coating on Hot Corrosion Resistance of γ-TiAl Alloy at Different Temperatures” (ID: ilt-07-2020-0283). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1.1 Response to comment: (I found 4 times in the new added text (in red) that TiCN was written instead of Ti(C,N).) Response: We are sorry that we only paid attention to the original part and ignored the subsequent nano indentation analysis. We have made corresponding changes. 1.2 Response to comment: (Please correct the referencing in the newly added paragraph which addresses 1.6 (van Stiphout, K at al).) Response: We are sorry that we were too hasty to quote references correctly at that time. We have made corresponding corrections this time. 1.3 Response to comment: (In my opinion, it is more recommended and suited to place this paragraph in the discussion section rather than conclusion. Anyway, it is up to the author and editor to decide. These are some suggested modifications: “The comparison of the amount of residual stresses before and after shot peening and evolution of stresses after DGPA could be highly valuable. This issue was not addressed in the present study as it is focused on grain refinement. “) Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We also think it is appropriate to put this sentence in the discussion part. We have put this sentence into the analysis of shot peening. Reviewer #2: Response to comment: (Average thickness values in page 6 must include the same significant figures of the corresponding errors.) Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the thickness value accordingly. The corresponding correction is also made in the thickness image of the coating.



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 3)
    Decision Letter
    2020/11/25

    25-Nov-2020

    Dear Dr. Miao:

    Manuscript ID ilt-07-2020-0283.R2 entitled "Effect of shot peening on the wear behavior of Ti(C,N) coating on TA15 alloy prepared by double glow plasma carbonitriding" which you submitted to the Industrial Lubrication and Tribology, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    The reviewer(s) have recommended revisions to the submitted manuscript, before it can be considered for publication. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript.

    To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ilt and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre. The deadline for uploading a revised manuscript is 25-Dec-2020 from receiving this email. If it is not possible for you to resubmit your revision within this timeframe, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Please note that Emerald requires you to clear permission to re-use any material not created by you. If there are permissions outstanding, please send these to Emerald as soon as possible. Emerald is unable to publish your paper with permissions outstanding.

    To help support you on your publishing journey we have partnered with Editage, a leading global science communication platform, to offer expert editorial support including language editing and translation.
    If your article has been rejected or revisions have been requested, you may benefit from Editage’s services. For a full list of services, visit: authorservices.emeraldpublishing.com/
    Please note that there is no obligation to use Editage and using this service does not guarantee publication.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Industrial Lubrication and Tribology and I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Sincerely,
    Prof. Carsten Gachot
    Editor, Industrial Lubrication and Tribology
    carsten.gachot@tuwien.ac.at

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Comments to the Author
    The manuscript has been greatly improved, these minor issues can be still corrected:

    1- I found 4 times in the new added text (in red) that TiCN was written instead of Ti(C,N).

    2- Please correct the referencing in the newly added paragraph which addresses 1.6 (van Stiphout, K at al)

    3- In my opinion, it is more recommended and suited to place this paragraph in the discussion section rather than conclusion. Anyway, it is up to the author and editor to decide. These are some suggested modifications:
    “The comparison of the amount of residual stresses before and after shot peening and evolution of stresses after DGPA could be highly valuable. This issue was not addressed in the present study as it is focused on grain refinement. “

    Reviewer: 2

    Comments to the Author
    Average thickness values in page 6 must include the same significant figures of the corresponding errors.
    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Accept

    Comments:
    The manuscript has been greatly improved, these minor issues can be still corrected:

    1- I found 4 times in the new added text (in red) that TiCN was written instead of Ti(C,N).

    2- Please correct the referencing in the newly added paragraph which addresses 1.6 (van Stiphout, K at al)

    3- In my opinion, it is more recommended and suited to place this paragraph in the discussion section rather than conclusion. Anyway, it is up to the author and editor to decide. These are some suggested modifications:
    “The comparison of the amount of residual stresses before and after shot peening and evolution of stresses after DGPA could be highly valuable. This issue was not addressed in the present study as it is focused on grain refinement. “

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Yes

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any signficant work ignored?: Yes

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: Yes

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Yes

    Practicality and/or Research implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent withthe findings and conclusions of the paper?: Yes

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Yes

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no. All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    Average thickness values in page 6 must include the same significant figures of the corresponding errors.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Yes

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any signficant work ignored?: Yes

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: Yes

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Yes, but average thickness values in page 6 must include the same significant figures of the corresponding errors.

    Practicality and/or Research implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent withthe findings and conclusions of the paper?: Yes

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Yes

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no. All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/11/25

    Average thickness values in page 6 must include the same significant figures of the corresponding errors.

    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/11/24

    The manuscript has been greatly improved, these minor issues can be still corrected:

    1- I found 4 times in the new added text (in red) that TiCN was written instead of Ti(C,N).

    2- Please correct the referencing in the newly added paragraph which addresses 1.6 (van Stiphout, K at al)

    3- In my opinion, it is more recommended and suited to place this paragraph in the discussion section rather than conclusion. Anyway, it is up to the author and editor to decide. These are some suggested modifications:
    “The comparison of the amount of residual stresses before and after shot peening and evolution of stresses after DGPA could be highly valuable. This issue was not addressed in the present study as it is focused on grain refinement. “

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2020/11/18

    Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effect of Al-Y Gradient Coating on Hot Corrosion Resistance of γ-TiAl Alloy at Different Temperatures” (ID: ilt-07-2020-0283). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1.1 Response to comment: (Regarding the scale bar, I think it is still possible to make a uniform scale bar for Figure 1 and Figure 8.) Response: For Fig. 8, due to our negligence, the scales of two pictures a and B are wrong, and we have made corrections. However, for the original sample, the scale of figures a and c is 200 μ m, and for shot peening sample, the scales of figure b and d are 500 μ m. For details of the wear marks, we take SEM images at a same scale of 20 μ m. For Figure 1, we consider the beauty of the image, and although the scale of Figure 1 is different, we list the exact particle size in the analysis to remind the reader of the main purpose of the existence of Figure 1. And from the picture, the same scale map is not beautiful. We would like to list pictures of the same scale in the reply letter to show their disadvantages, but somehow, this reply letter can only display text, not paste pictures. 1.2 Response to comment: (Figure 6 caption seems to be reversed. According to the text: Figure 6(a) is SP-TA15 and Figure 6(b) is TA-15. Please maintain the same x-axis range (150 nm) for (a) and (b).) Response: Thank you for your criticism and correction. We have made corresponding adjustments. 1.3 Response to comment: (The image captions are still short and do not provide enough details. They could be improved.) Response: Thank you for your criticism. We have adjusted the titles of Figures 4,5,7and 8 accordingly. 1.4 Response to comment: (TiCN is written instead of Ti(C,N) in the image caption.) Response: Thank you for your criticism. We have adjusted the titles of Figure accordingly. 1.5 Response to comment: (What is the carbon source for the carbonitriding process?) Response: “In the process of double glow plasma carbonitriding, the source target is pure graphite (99.5%) with a diameter of 100 mm and a thickness of 4 mm, which is placed directly above the sample.” The second paragraph of 2.1 Coating preparation. 1.6 Response to comment: (In Figure 3, peaks intensity of the modified layer of SP-TA15 is higher than TA15. This could be related to highly textured layer and this is important to mention. More discussion and analysis are required. Moreover, if the position of the SP curve is changed for cosmetic reasons, it is recommendable to maintain the same color code for SP-TA15 and TA15 (black and red) (as in Figure 2) to discard confusion.) Response: Thank you for your criticism. We realize this point and discuss and analyze it on the basis of consulting relevant literature. “The peak strength of Ti(C,N) coatings on SP-treated TA15 is higher than that on original TA15. This change may be related to the highly textured layer on the surface, van Stiphout, K emphasize the strong interwoven nature of phase formation, texture and morphological degradation and illustrate that the kinetics of the early stages of thin film reactions consist of more than just diffusion, i.e. nucleation can also play a crucial role. Due to the obvious promotion of the adsorption and nucleation of C and N atoms by the nano surface layer, it is also possible to produce preferred orientation and form texture layer during surface nucleation.” And we have made some adjustments to figure 2. 1.7 Response to comment: (Page 5-line 10: “The diffraction peaks migrated” better replace migrated with “shifted”) Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have made corresponding changes. 1.8 Response to comment: (Page 6 - line 31, related to quantification of C and N with EDS. It is recommended to include in the manuscript the answer that you provided associated to the qualitative comparative analysis.) Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added our explanation to the article. 1.9 Response to comment: (Page 8 - line 40. “The wear morphologies of the two samples were completely different”. In which sense the morphologies are different, more details are needed.) Response: Thank you for your suggestion and we have properly marked figure 8 to help analyze the surface morphology of the wear marks. 1.10 Response to comment: (Although, as said by the authors, that: “there are not many papers about the effect of residual stress on the subsequent coating preparation”, maybe a comparison of the amount of residual stresses before and after shot peening and evolution of stresses after DGPA could be highly valuable. In case this issue will not be addressed in the present study as it is focused on grain refinement, it is desirable to mention it in the manuscript.) Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added your suggestions to the conclusion of the article, and we will continue to study this topic to find out more. Reviewer #2: Response to comment: (the description of the methodology for the new nanoindentation results is missing) Response: Thank you for your reminder. We have added it in Section 2.2. Response to comment: (the main conclusions from the nanoindentation analysis* must be included in the conclusion and abstract sections) Response: Thank you for your reminding. We have added the corresponding contents in the conclusion and abstract section. Response to comment: (average values of grain size and coatings thickness must include standard deviation and values in table I must included the same significant figures) Response: Thank you for your reminding. For the grain size values in Table 1, we have calculated the standard deviation with the corresponding formula, and have made corresponding modifications in the paper. The significant figures in Table 1 are also corrected accordingly. For the coating thickness, we also measured several cross-section photos from different samples, obtained the average value and standard deviation, and adjusted the thickness value accordingly. Thank you for your comments. We are aware of the standard representation of the numbers in the paper. And in the future paper writing, we will standardize the numerical schemes. Response to comment: (a comment about the effect of micro strains on the estimation of the grain size using equation (1) must be included, specially if peak shifts were observed due to stress. Please comment about this issue based on literature) Response: Thank you for your advice. In order to avoid the reader's doubt, we applied a new method, Williamson hall method, to calculate the grain size and lattice strain simultaneously. In this way, the effects of grain refinement and lattice distortion on the broadening of XRD diffraction peaks can be considered simultaneously. We have made corresponding changes in the article. The grain size calculated by this method is more accurate than that calculated by Scheler formula, because it also takes into account the broadening of diffraction peak caused by lattice distortion. In addition, the broadening of the peak and the shift of the peak have been explained in the original article. We believe that the method of calculating grain size and lattice distortion at the same time will avoid great misunderstanding. In fact, we also want to add the research of residual stress, lattice distortion and other factors of the matrix surface to the article, but our literature research has not found sufficient theoretical support, so we focused on the research of nanocrystalline grains. In addition, referring to the suggestion of another reviewer, we recognize the value of the research on residual stress and other factors in the conclusion, and will carry out follow-up research. Response to comment: (the use of vague terminology stills remains (obviously, small, great, etc) Response: Thank you for your criticism. We have made corresponding corrections in the article, but we still retain the word small for some numerical comparisons. We have made a detailed deletion of the words "great, obviously".



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 2)
    Decision Letter
    2020/11/15

    15-Nov-2020

    Dear Dr. Miao:

    Manuscript ID ilt-07-2020-0283.R1 entitled "Effect of shot peening on the wear behavior of TiCN coating on TA15 alloy prepared by double glow plasma carbonitriding" which you submitted to the Industrial Lubrication and Tribology, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    The reviewer(s) have recommended major revisions to the submitted manuscript, before it can be considered for publication. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript.

    To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ilt and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre. The deadline for uploading a revised manuscript is 13-Feb-2021 from receiving this email. If it is not possible for you to resubmit your revision within this timeframe, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Please note that Emerald requires you to clear permission to re-use any material not created by you. If there are permissions outstanding, please send these to Emerald as soon as possible. Emerald is unable to publish your paper with permissions outstanding.

    To help support you on your publishing journey we have partnered with Editage, a leading global science communication platform, to offer expert editorial support including language editing and translation.
    If your article has been rejected or revisions have been requested, you may benefit from Editage’s services. For a full list of services, visit: authorservices.emeraldpublishing.com/
    Please note that there is no obligation to use Editage and using this service does not guarantee publication.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Industrial Lubrication and Tribology and I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Sincerely,
    Prof. Carsten Gachot
    Editor, Industrial Lubrication and Tribology
    carsten.gachot@tuwien.ac.at

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Comments to the Author
    Please consult the new review file

    Reviewer: 2

    Comments to the Author
    The manuscript improved, but the following details must be fixed:

    • the description of the methodology for the new nanoindentation results is missing
    • the main conclusions from the nanoindentation analysis* must be included in the conclusion and abstract sections
    • average values of grain size and coatings thickness must include standard deviation and values in table I must included the same significant figures
    • a comment about the effect of micro strains on the estimation of the grain size using equation (1) must be included, specially if peak shifts were observed due to stress. Please comment about this issue based on literature**
    • the use of vague terminology stills remains (obviously, small, great, etc)

    • These results show that under the same load, the residual depth of SP-treated TA15 is shallower, the plastic work is smaller, and the K value is larger. Higher K value means that the energy consumed by plastic deformation is less than that consumed by elastic deformation under stress state, resulting in larger elastic deformation, thus reducing stress concentration and producing dispersed stress, so that the material can bear more load before irreversible deformation.

    **P. Thompson, D.E. Cox, J.B. Hastings, Rietveld refinement of Debye–Scherrer synchrotron X-ray data from Al2O3, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 20 (1987) 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1107/S0021889887087090.
    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    Please consult the new review file

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Yes

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any signficant work ignored?: -

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: -

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: -

    Practicality and/or Research implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent withthe findings and conclusions of the paper?: -

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: -

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no. All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    The manuscript improved, but the following details must be fixed:

    • the description of the methodology for the new nanoindentation results is missing
    • the main conclusions from the nanoindentation analysis* must be included in the conclusion and abstract sections
    • average values of grain size and coatings thickness must include standard deviation and values in table I must included the same significant figures
    • a comment about the effect of micro strains on the estimation of the grain size using equation (1) must be included, specially if peak shifts were observed due to stress. Please comment about this issue based on literature**
    • the use of vague terminology stills remains (obviously, small, great, etc)

    • These results show that under the same load, the residual depth of SP-treated TA15 is shallower, the plastic work is smaller, and the K value is larger. Higher K value means that the energy consumed by plastic deformation is less than that consumed by elastic deformation under stress state, resulting in larger elastic deformation, thus reducing stress concentration and producing dispersed stress, so that the material can bear more load before irreversible deformation.

    **P. Thompson, D.E. Cox, J.B. Hastings, Rietveld refinement of Debye–Scherrer synchrotron X-ray data from Al2O3, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 20 (1987) 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1107/S0021889887087090.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Yes, the paper contains new and significant information adequate to justify publication.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any signficant work ignored?: Yes, the paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources. New literature and data analysis on the base of literature was included.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: Yes the paper is built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts and standard techniques. The description of the substrate treatments and coatings was improved.

    Nevertheless, the description of the methodology for the new nanoindentation results is missing.

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Yes the results are presented clearly and analysed appropriately. Figures and analysis were improved, and new interesting nanoindentation results were added.

    Nevertheless, the main conclusions from the nanoindentation analysis* must be included in the conclusion and abstract sections.

    Also, average values of grain size and coatings thickness must include standard deviation and values in table I must included the same significant figures.

    Also, a comment about the effect of micro strains on the estimation of the grain size using equation (1) must be included, specially if peak shifts were observed due to stress. Please comment about this issue based on literature**.

    • These results show that under the same load, the residual depth of SP-treated TA15 is shallower, the plastic work is smaller, and the K value is larger. Higher K value means that the energy consumed by plastic deformation is less than that consumed by elastic deformation under stress state, resulting in larger elastic deformation, thus reducing stress concentration and producing dispersed stress, so that the material can bear more load before irreversible deformation.

    **P. Thompson, D.E. Cox, J.B. Hastings, Rietveld refinement of Debye–Scherrer synchrotron X-ray data from Al2O3, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 20 (1987) 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1107/S0021889887087090.

    Practicality and/or Research implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent withthe findings and conclusions of the paper?: Yes, the findings can provide further research and applications on Ti-based coatings.

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Yes, English was improved, but the use of vague terminology stills remains (obviously, small, great, etc).

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no. All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/11/13

    The manuscript improved, but the following details must be fixed:

    • the description of the methodology for the new nanoindentation results is missing
    • the main conclusions from the nanoindentation analysis* must be included in the conclusion and abstract sections
    • average values of grain size and coatings thickness must include standard deviation and values in table I must included the same significant figures
    • a comment about the effect of micro strains on the estimation of the grain size using equation (1) must be included, specially if peak shifts were observed due to stress. Please comment about this issue based on literature**
    • the use of vague terminology stills remains (obviously, small, great, etc)

    • These results show that under the same load, the residual depth of SP-treated TA15 is shallower, the plastic work is smaller, and the K value is larger. Higher K value means that the energy consumed by plastic deformation is less than that consumed by elastic deformation under stress state, resulting in larger elastic deformation, thus reducing stress concentration and producing dispersed stress, so that the material can bear more load before irreversible deformation.

    **P. Thompson, D.E. Cox, J.B. Hastings, Rietveld refinement of Debye–Scherrer synchrotron X-ray data from Al2O3, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 20 (1987) 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1107/S0021889887087090.

    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/11/01

    Please consult the new review file

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2020/10/13

    Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effect of Al-Y Gradient Coating on Hot Corrosion Resistance of γ-TiAl Alloy at Different Temperatures” (ID: ilt-07-2020-0283). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1.1 Response to comment: (Give more details about the shot peening process in the introduction and the experimental part. Similar thing is recommended for the double glow plasma process and carbonitriding.) Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We did write a lot about the details of the experiment at the beginning, but the length of the journal should be less than 3000 words, so we had to delete some contents. In this revised draft, we have added some supplementary explanations in the experimental part. 1.2 Response to comment: (Provide data on the penetration depth of the affected outer-surface after SP treatment. Provide a comparison between TA15 and SP-TA15 before plasma treatment.) Response: We are aware of the contrast between the two samples. So we add metallographic photos of the samples before and after treatment to explain the grain refinement and the thickness of the shot peening affected zone.(Figure 1 and 3.1 Microstructural characterization after shot peening) 1.3 Response to comment: (It is recommendable to show SEM images that highlight clearly the difference between the plasma treated samples (TA15 vs SP-TA15). Combining specific etching and BSE detector could provide very nice phase contrast images.) Response: We did try to take the backscatter diffraction image, but the picture is not very ideal, and from the metallographic picture we can see that the grain size of TA15 titanium alloy is not very obvious. So we abandoned this test and used XRD to roughly estimate the grain size. The difference between the plasma treated samples is mainly shickness and surface projectiles, so we didn't add BSE images. In the friction and wear experiment, we take clear pictures and analyze them in detail, focusing on comparing the friction and wear properties of the two samples. 1.4 Response to comment: (Scale bar of the images should be reviewed and uniformized within each image. The image captions are short and do not provide enough details and information to make the images more understandable. Samples terminology (nomenclature) must be defined and determined.) Response: In order to show a clearer comparison, we have enlarged some samples to obtain more details, so that we can carry out more accurate and detailed analysis. We think that if all the pictures are at the same scale, there will be distortion. The image captions are modified in detail. We're sorry we didn't check the image captions carefully. Samples terminology is illustrated in parentheses in the experience section(TA15, SP-TA15 and DGPA). 1.5 Response to comment: (It is highly recommendable to provide hardness values for the corresponding coatings.) Response: Thank you for your comments on our test method. We carried out nano indentation test on the samples. Using the test results of nanoindentation, we further analyzed the samples, which provided a more powerful support for our point of view. 1.6 Response to comment: (It is highly recommendable to write Ti(C,N) instead of TiCN. Some people consider TiCN as a wrong description.) Response: Thank you very much for your advice. We have revised the TiCN in this paper. 1.7 Response to comment: (Shot peening induces residual stresses. Did the authors consider this aspect in their investigation?) Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We did consider the effect of residual stress on the coating at the beginning of the experiment, and consulted a lot of literature. However, there are not many papers about the effect of residual stress on the subsequent coating preparation, while there are many researches on the effect of grain refinement and surface activity on the coating. Considering the theoretical support, we decided to avoid the residual stress and focus on the grain refinement. In the follow-up study, we will take this as a research aspect and try to make a research plan. 2.1 Response to comment: (Page 3 – line 12-23: it is said that SP sample is polished before and after the treatment.This may implement that the effect of SP on the outer surface was reduced or suppressed by polishing. Can you comment on that?) Response: We have amended the original sentence to “After being annealed at 900℃ for 3 h, the plate was polished to be free from grease, scale, rust”. In the polishing process, we only use a little water to polish, and the duration is only 1 minute. The outermost surface is not affected and this polishing step is to preliminarily clean the surface of the shot peened specimen. Before the double glow process, there will be ion cleaning steps. 2.2 Response to comment: (Page 3 – line 28: “Argon and nitrogen are introduced into the reactor as protective gases”. Is the nitrogen also playing a protective role or is it used in the carbonitriding process?) We are sorry we didn't check it carefully when we wrote the article. The original sentence has been amended to “Ar is introduced into the reactor as protective gas. N2 is introduced into the reactor as the reaction gas.” 2.3 Response to comment: (Page 4 – Line 7: In Figure 1, comparing TA15 and SP-TA15, peaks intensity of the treated sample way lower than the standard one. Moreover, the Beta-phase is absent. These issues should be discussed in the manuscript. Similar issues for Figure 2, color code for SP-TA15 and TA15 is reversed in comparison to Figure 1. It is recommended to mention the crystal lattice type of the analyzed phases.) Response: We have analyzed this part, but because of the length of this journal, we think that this part is not helpful to the conclusion of the paper, so we delete this part of the discussion, and only focus on the refinement of the grain. For Figure 2, We put the XRD pattern with higher peak at the top of the figure to pursue beauty, and the color is also corresponding to Figure 1. We think that the corresponding marking on the diagram should not affect the readers' reading. 2.4 Response to comment: (Page 5 – Line 8-12: “Compared with the original sample, the particles on SP-treated TA15 were uniformly distributed and finer, which is a strong proof that TiCN coating on the SP-treated TA15 is more compact and crack-free (Ma, G., et al. 2010).” From Figure 3, the distribution uniformity looks similar for both samples. What is the relation between the “distribution uniformity” and crack-free TiCN coating? More explanations are needed.) Response: The scales of the pictures in Fig. 3 are not the same, and Fig. 3(b) is more magnified. Since enlarging figure a to the same scale will cause distortion and particles will occupy the whole picture, we choose these two pictures with different scales to show the size comparison of particles. Therefore, in fact, the distribution of particles is more uniform in graph b. The original sentence is “uniformly distributed and finer”, the uniform distribution and very small particles on the coating surface, if the coating is not compact enough or there are cracks, then these particles will also form Canyon distribution on the surface. Generally speaking, the smaller particle size and uniform distribution of the coating prove that the coating is compact and crack free. In addition, it can be seen that the coating is dense and crack free from the part of the coating not covered by particles in Figure a. 2.5 Response to comment: (Page 6 - Line 31, quantification of C and N with EDS is tricky and challenging. Did you take into account this?) Response: Indeed, EDS analysis is not suitable for quantitative analysis of C, N and other elements with relatively light atomic mass. The EDS results listed here are only a comparative analysis. We only need to determine the distribution of C and N elements and a rough content of these groups of samples to illustrate our point of view. Using bar chart to display EDS results is not considered carefully. Therefore, we list the EDS results in the form of table with the original measured data, and attach the error value measured by EDS equipment. 2.6 Response to comment: (Page 7 - Line 43, “which coincides with the more violent fluctuation”. Please replace the word “more violent”.) Response: We are sorry that we are poor in English. We have replaced the word with “more severe”. 2.7 Response to comment: (Page 12 - Table III, what do “B” and “D” signify? Why is the grazing angle changing? is it for more penetration depth? Why is the averaging not performed at the same grazing angle taking different spots? The table/data could be better presented.) Response: D is the average thickness of the grain perpendicular to the grain plane; K is Scherrer constant (0.9); β is the full width at half maximum of the diffraction peak of the sample; θ is the diffraction angle; γ is the wavelength of X-ray (0.154056 nm). The calculated grain size is listed in Table Ⅲ. Here, the symbols are the corresponding symbols in the Scherrer formula: D=Kγ/βcosθ. The premise of the method to calculate the grain size by Scheler formula is to eliminate the stress caused by lattice distortion and the influence of peak broadening caused by instrument broadening. Scheler formula is a famous formula for XRD analysis of grain size. For the shot peened specimen, the broadening of diffraction peak is mainly caused by lattice distortion and grain refinement. The effect of the residual stress on the diffraction peak is that the diffraction peak moves left and right. The broadening of diffraction peak caused by lattice distortion or grain refinement follows different rules. The half peak width(β) of different diffraction angles was used to observe the variation of half peak width(β) of each diffraction angle(θ) with diffraction angle(θ), if D=Kγ/βcosθ is a constant, the broadening of diffraction peak is caused by fine grains, if ϵ=1/4 βctgθ is a constant, the broadening of diffraction peak is caused by lattice distortion. We have already considered the cause of the broadening of diffraction peaks, so we have listed the calculated grain size of each diffraction peak in Table Ⅲ. We can see that D is a constant, so the broadening of diffraction peak is mainly caused by fine grains. We did perform multiple X-ray diffraction tests on the same surface. The calculation results are the same. In order to deal with the reader's problem about the broadening of XRD peak, we have included this table in the article to explain the grain refinement rather than plastic deformation. 2.8 Response to comment: (Page 16 - Figure 4: The scale is not similar between the 2 images) Response: In order to show a clearer comparison, we have enlarged some samples to obtain more details, so that we can carry out more accurate and detailed analysis. We think that if all the pictures are at the same scale, there will be distortion and the features presented in the pictures can not directly reflect the analysis conclusion of the article. 2.9 Response to comment: (Page 18 - Figure 6: Similarly, the scale bar is not similar between the images! Images need to be labeled!) Response: In order to show a clearer comparison, we have enlarged some samples to obtain more details, so that we can carry out more accurate and detailed analysis. We think that if all the pictures are at the same scale, there will be distortion and the features presented in the pictures can not directly reflect the analysis conclusion of the article. 2.10 Response to comment: (Page 19 – Figure 7: It is recommendable to combine it with Figure 6.) Response: Since it is not appropriate to present EDS results in the form of histogram, we present them in the form of tables. Minor issues: 1 Response to comment: (Many parentheses are directly connected to the word without a space.) Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have made corresponding changes to the article. Minor issues: 2 Response to comment: (Elemental mapping in Figure 6 could be helpful in highlighting the contrast between different samples.) Response: We did consider adding EDS map scan images, but due to the length of the article, we think that EDS point scan data can reflect the distribution of elements in the wear trace, and can analyze the oxidation degree more accurately. So we deleted the map scan data and analysis in this manuscript. Reviewer #2: 1. Response to comment: (Correct English) Response: We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion. We have reviewed the article in detail and revised some grammar and spelling problems. Thank you for pointing out the language problem. We will be more careful to avoid language problems in future thesis writing. 2. Response to comment: (Scherrer formula does not provide information on grain size. Apart from it - there is no comparison between result BEFORE and AFTER treatment. From this point of view - conclusion about refinement are absolutely wrong.) Response: Scheler formula is a famous formula for XRD analysis of grain size. For the shot peened specimen, the broadening of diffraction peak is mainly caused by lattice distortion and grain refinement. The effect of the residual stress on the diffraction peak is that the diffraction peak moves left and right. The broadening of diffraction peak caused by lattice distortion or grain refinement follows different rules. The half peak width(β) of different diffraction angles was used to observe the variation of half peak width(β) of each diffraction angle(θ) with diffraction angle(θ), if D=Kγ/βcosθ is a constant, the broadening of diffraction peak is caused by fine grains, if ϵ=1/4 βctgθ is a constant, the broadening of diffraction peak is caused by lattice distortion. We have already considered the cause of the broadening of diffraction peaks, so we have listed the calculated grain size of each diffraction peak in Table Ⅲ. We can see that D is a constant, so the broadening of diffraction peak is mainly caused by fine grains. In addition, we also add metallographic photos of the samples before and after treatment to explain the grain refinement and the thickness of the shot peening affected zone. Thank you for your questions about the factors of diffraction peak broadening and the comparison of samples before and after treatment, so as to make our article more solid and rigorous. Table Ⅲ Grain size after shot peening θ/° 35.35 38.52 40.33 53.22 63.31 70.89 B 0.68611 0.76206 0.72999 0.6871 0.86183 0.78597 D/(nm) 12.1525 11.0428 11.5934 12.9323 10.8292 12.4074 Average grainsize/(nm) 11.8263 3. Response to comment: (EDS - first - qualitative assessment of carbon content is strongly inadvisable; second - if You present results in form of bar graph - (or any other)- please put error bars. and numerical values as well.) (4a. Widening of peaks can be mainly a result of plastic deformation not refinement of grains.) Response: Indeed, EDS analysis is not suitable for quantitative analysis of C, N and other elements with relatively light atomic mass. The EDS results listed here are only a comparative analysis. We only need to determine the distribution of C and N elements and a rough content of these groups of samples to illustrate our point of view. Using bar chart to display EDS results is not considered carefully. Therefore, we list the EDS results in the form of table with the original measured data, and attach the error value measured by EDS equipment. TableⅤ EDS results of spot A, B, C, D in Figure 7 Spot C/(at.%) N/(at.%) O/(at.%) Ti/(at.%) A 4.71 3.92 26.33 65.04 B 14.92 21.75 19.31 44.02 C 3.75 1.02 22.92 72.31 D 20.55 13.32 21.16 44.97 Error/vaule 2.34 1.37 4.06 0.88 4. Response to comment: (XRD - what was the penetration depth in case of GIXRD?. Interpretation of results (diffraction patterns) - is doubtful -many peaks overlap, increase resolution and accuracy; step size as well time per step were not given.) Response: The penetration depth in case of GIXRD is about 1-2 μm. In order to improve the accuracy of XRD analysis, we did a fine scan on the sample and the original XRD pattern was replaced by the new XRD pattern. The step size is 0.01° and time per step is 2°/min. However, the surface roughness of shot peening samples has a great influence on the XRD diffraction peaks. Due to the uneven surface of the shot peening sample, the penetration depth of X-ray on the convex and concave parts is different, and the reflected X-ray is also blocked by the convex part. Therefore, a large part of the measured XRD peaks are Ti diffraction peaks, and some TiCN compounds have weak peaks. However, after the comparison of the three strong peaks, we found that some TiCN compounds have overlapping peaks. We can not exclude the existence of these compounds, so we also label these compounds on the corresponding diffraction peaks. According to the thickness of the cross section and EDS analysis, the compounds in these modified layers do exist. 5. Response to comment: (You did not consider application of very simple and in this case, useful, methods like hardness measuremt and roughess) Response: Thank you for your comments on our test method. We carried out nano indentation test on the samples. Using the test results of nanoindentation, we further analyzed the samples, which provided a more powerful support for our point of view. As for the roughness, because the double glow plasma technology is not very sensitive to the surface roughness of the sample, we did not write the roughness test results into the paper. 6. Response to comment: (What are the "dots" visible in figure 3?) Response: We are sorry that we did not explain the composition of the particles in Fig. 3, which is a major feature of double glow plasma technology. The particles on the surface of the sample are carbonitride compounds formed and accumulated on the surface. We have given a supplementary explanation to the analysis of this figure in this paper. 7. Response to comment: (In general all figures are too small. Fig 3 - extremely poor quality, fig 4- invisible lines, fig 6 - too small - unreadable) Response: We attach great importance to the quality and reliability of the paper pictures. Therefore, we modify the pictures in the article to achieve the best image quality. 8. Response to comment: (Cross sections preparation - figure 4 - sholud be preapred better. Surfaces are uneven - in case 4b - I suspect chipping in the surface are the result of wrong preparation.) Response: The surface of the shot peened sample has a certain roughness, so the cross-section picture is indeed uneven. We are sorry that we did not explain the particles in Figure 3, which led to your unnecessary doubt. 9. Response to comment: (Consideration of residual streses induced by shot peening wolud be a very interesting part of Your researches) Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We did consider the effect of residual stress on the coating at the beginning of the experiment, and consulted a lot of literature. However, there are not many papers about the effect of residual stress on the subsequent coating preparation, while there are many researches on the effect of grain refinement and surface activity on the coating. Considering the theoretical support, we decided to avoid the residual stress and focus on the grain refinement. In the follow-up study, we will take this as a research aspect and try to make a research plan. Reviewer #3: 1. Response to comment: (It is recommended to add the following reference in the introduction to show that the combination of materials used in this paper are novel and worth of study: S. Yuan, N. Lin, Q. Zeng, H. Zhang, X. Liu, Z. Wang, Y. Wu, Recent developments in research of double glow plasma surface alloying technology: A brief review, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 9 (2020) 6859–6882.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.03.123.) Response: We have fully read this article and cited it as a reference. Thank you for your recommendation of this article. We have learned a lot of theoretical knowledge and modified our paper better. 2. Response to comment: (The description of the substrate treatments and coatings is too scarce. References where the same experimental methods were used are required.) Response: We have modified the substrate and coating in detail. And read more relevant literature, cited more references as the theoretical support of the analysis. 3. Response to comment: (Deeper discussion about the data interpretation is needed on the base of the literature.) Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have read more literature and more detailed data analysis, and added references as theoretical support. 4. Response to comment: (Cause-effect discussion must be developed in the discussion section in order to present evidences and corresponding explanations in the conclusions section.) Response: We recognized the shortcomings of our analysis, and at the suggestion of another reviewer, we added two parts of the test and attached a detailed analysis. Due to the length of the article, we only selected some important conclusions in the conclusion part. 5. Response to comment: (Vague terminology must be avoided (good, very, better, etc.).) Response: We were aware of the inaccuracy of our language, so we reviewed the whole article in detail and revised many vague terms.



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Reviewer report
    2020/09/04

    General Comments:
    1- It is recommended to add the following reference in the introduction to show that the combination of materials used in this paper are novel and worth of study:
    S. Yuan, N. Lin, Q. Zeng, H. Zhang, X. Liu, Z. Wang, Y. Wu, Recent developments in research of double glow plasma surface alloying technology: A brief review, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 9 (2020) 6859–6882.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.03.123.

    2- The description of the substrate treatments and coatings is too scarce. References where the same experimental methods were used are required.

    3- Deeper discussion about the data interpretation is needed on the base of the literature.

    4- Cause-effect discussion must be developed in the discussion section in order to present evidences and corresponding explanations in the conclusions section.

    5- Vague terminology must be avoided (good, very, better, etc.).

    Cite this review
    Decision Letter
    2020/09/03

    03-Sep-2020

    Dear Dr. Miao:

    Manuscript ID ilt-07-2020-0283 entitled "Effect of shot peening on the wear behavior of TiCN coating on TA15 alloy prepared by double glow plasma carbonitriding" which you submitted to the Industrial Lubrication and Tribology, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    The reviewer(s) have recommended major revisions to the submitted manuscript, before it can be considered for publication. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript.

    To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ilt and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre. The deadline for uploading a revised manuscript is 02-Dec-2020 from receiving this email. If it is not possible for you to resubmit your revision within this timeframe, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Please note that Emerald requires you to clear permission to re-use any material not created by you. If there are permissions outstanding, please send these to Emerald as soon as possible. Emerald is unable to publish your paper with permissions outstanding.

    To help support you on your publishing journey we have partnered with Editage, a leading global science communication platform, to offer expert editorial support including language editing and translation.
    If your article has been rejected or revisions have been requested, you may benefit from Editage’s services. For a full list of services, visit: authorservices.emeraldpublishing.com/
    Please note that there is no obligation to use Editage and using this service does not guarantee publication.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Industrial Lubrication and Tribology and I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Sincerely,
    Prof. Carsten Gachot
    Editor, Industrial Lubrication and Tribology
    carsten.gachot@tuwien.ac.at

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Comments to the Author
    (There are no comments.)

    Reviewer: 2

    Comments to the Author
    Dear Authors
    1. Correct English
    2. Scherrer formula does not provide informations on grain size. Apart from it - there is no comparision between result BEFORE and AFTER treatment. From this point of view - conlusion about refinemet are absolutely wrong.
    3. EDS - first - qualitative assesement of carbon content is strongly inadvisable; second - if You present results in form of bar graph - (or any other)- please put error bars. and numerical values as well.
    4. XRD - what was the penetration depth in case of GIXRD?. Interpration of results (diffraction patterns) - is dubtful -many peaks overlap, increase resolution and accuracy; step size as well time per step were not given.
    4a. Widening of peaks can be mainly a result of plastic deformation not refinement of grains..
    5. You did not consider application of very simple and in this case, useful, methods like hardness measuremt and roughess
    6. What are the "dots" visible in figure 3?
    7. In general all figures are too small. Fig 3 - extremly poor quality, fig 4- unvisible lines, fig 6 - too small - unreadable
    8. Cross sections preparation - figure 4 - sholud be preapred better. Surfaces are uneven - in case 4b - I suspect chiping in the surface are the result of wrong preaparation.
    9. Consideration of residual streses induced by shot peening wolud be a very interesting part of Your researches

    Reviewer: 3

    Comments to the Author
    General Comments:
    1- It is recommended to add the following reference in the introduction to show that the combination of materials used in this paper are novel and worth of study:
    S. Yuan, N. Lin, Q. Zeng, H. Zhang, X. Liu, Z. Wang, Y. Wu, Recent developments in research of double glow plasma surface alloying technology: A brief review, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 9 (2020) 6859–6882.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.03.123.

    2- The description of the substrate treatments and coatings is too scarce. References where the same experimental methods were used are required.

    3- Deeper discussion about the data interpretation is needed on the base of the literature.

    4- Cause-effect discussion must be developed in the discussion section in order to present evidences and corresponding explanations in the conclusions section.

    5- Vague terminology must be avoided (good, very, better, etc.).
    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Major Revision

    Comments:
    (There are no comments.)

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: To my best knowledge, shot peening before double glow plasma alloying to produce Ti(C,N) which lead to notable decrease of friction coefficient is an original result.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any signficant work ignored?: I cannot judge if any significant work was ignored.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: Some comments (attached file) need to be addressed

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Some comments (attached file) need to be addressed

    Practicality and/or Research implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent withthe findings and conclusions of the paper?: For the practice aspect it does.

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Minor comments could be seen in the attached file.

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no. All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Reject & Resubmit

    Comments:
    Dear Authors
    1. Correct English
    2. Scherrer formula does not provide informations on grain size. Apart from it - there is no comparision between result BEFORE and AFTER treatment. From this point of view - conlusion about refinemet are absolutely wrong.
    3. EDS - first - qualitative assesement of carbon content is strongly inadvisable; second - if You present results in form of bar graph - (or any other)- please put error bars. and numerical values as well.
    4. XRD - what was the penetration depth in case of GIXRD?. Interpration of results (diffraction patterns) - is dubtful -many peaks overlap, increase resolution and accuracy; step size as well time per step were not given.
    4a. Widening of peaks can be mainly a result of plastic deformation not refinement of grains..
    5. You did not consider application of very simple and in this case, useful, methods like hardness measuremt and roughess
    6. What are the "dots" visible in figure 3?
    7. In general all figures are too small. Fig 3 - extremly poor quality, fig 4- unvisible lines, fig 6 - too small - unreadable
    8. Cross sections preparation - figure 4 - sholud be preapred better. Surfaces are uneven - in case 4b - I suspect chiping in the surface are the result of wrong preaparation.
    9. Consideration of residual streses induced by shot peening wolud be a very interesting part of Your researches

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: To some extent. The idea of double glow plasma alloying is interesting. The idea of aplication of two satge modification (mechanical and chemical is not.
    Publication is in general not well justified.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any signficant work ignored?: Paper demonstrates adequte understanding of relevant literature and apprioprate range of literature sources is proposed.
    However Authors did not consider posible influence of residual streses caused by shot peening on creation of surface layers

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: Unfortunately, Authors presented quite acceptabke theoretical indtroduction but they made a lot of mistkes in interpration of results. And some very important, and very simple, methods of charcterisation of surface layers are missing like hardenss measurements and roughness assesment.
    Both XRD and EDS methods used were not employed apprioprate (EDS) or left a lot of doubts (XRD) like interprtation of diffraction patterns and misunderstanding the Scherrer formula.

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Reults are generally presented clearly but analysed in many aspects incorrectly.
    Problem is with quality of figures (to small, unreadable)

    Practicality and/or Research implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent withthe findings and conclusions of the paper?: This paper leaves many doubts, considering all of them, only full reconsidertion of results and complement of researches wolud give a good final result in this field

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Paper requires extensive language corrections.

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: N/A

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no. All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Reviewer: 3

    Recommendation: Major Revision

    Comments:
    General Comments:
    1- It is recommended to add the following reference in the introduction to show that the combination of materials used in this paper are novel and worth of study:
    S. Yuan, N. Lin, Q. Zeng, H. Zhang, X. Liu, Z. Wang, Y. Wu, Recent developments in research of double glow plasma surface alloying technology: A brief review, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 9 (2020) 6859–6882.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.03.123.

    2- The description of the substrate treatments and coatings is too scarce. References where the same experimental methods were used are required.

    3- Deeper discussion about the data interpretation is needed on the base of the literature.

    4- Cause-effect discussion must be developed in the discussion section in order to present evidences and corresponding explanations in the conclusions section.

    5- Vague terminology must be avoided (good, very, better, etc.).

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Yes, the paper contains new and significant information adequate to justify publication.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any signficant work ignored?: Yes, the paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources, but more discussion about the data interpretation is needed on the base of the literature.

    It is recommended to add the following reference in the introduction to show that the combination of materials used in this paper are novel and worth of study:

    S. Yuan, N. Lin, Q. Zeng, H. Zhang, X. Liu, Z. Wang, Y. Wu, Recent developments in research of double glow plasma surface alloying technology: A brief review, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 9 (2020) 6859–6882.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.03.123.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: Yes the paper is built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts and standard techniques.

    The description of the substrate treatments and coatings is too scarce. References where the same experimental methods were used are required.

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Figures need major revisions, see comments in the attachment.

    Conclusions are presented as simply observations. Cause-effect discussion must be developed in the discussion section in order to present evidences and corresponding explanations in the conclusions section.

    Practicality and/or Research implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent withthe findings and conclusions of the paper?: Yes, the findings can provide further research and applications on Ti-based coatings.

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: English redaction must be reviewed. The use of vague terminology is overwhelming, must be corrected.

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no. All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/08/31

    Dear Authors
    1. Correct English
    2. Scherrer formula does not provide informations on grain size. Apart from it - there is no comparision between result BEFORE and AFTER treatment. From this point of view - conlusion about refinemet are absolutely wrong.
    3. EDS - first - qualitative assesement of carbon content is strongly inadvisable; second - if You present results in form of bar graph - (or any other)- please put error bars. and numerical values as well.
    4. XRD - what was the penetration depth in case of GIXRD?. Interpration of results (diffraction patterns) - is dubtful -many peaks overlap, increase resolution and accuracy; step size as well time per step were not given.
    4a. Widening of peaks can be mainly a result of plastic deformation not refinement of grains..
    5. You did not consider application of very simple and in this case, useful, methods like hardness measuremt and roughess
    6. What are the "dots" visible in figure 3?
    7. In general all figures are too small. Fig 3 - extremly poor quality, fig 4- unvisible lines, fig 6 - too small - unreadable
    8. Cross sections preparation - figure 4 - sholud be preapred better. Surfaces are uneven - in case 4b - I suspect chiping in the surface are the result of wrong preaparation.
    9. Consideration of residual streses induced by shot peening wolud be a very interesting part of Your researches

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/08/20

    This reviewer report was submitted to the journal as an attached file and cannot be displayed at this time.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
All peer review content displayed here is covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.