Abstract

PurposeAerospace and defence industries use the materials having better properties at elevated temperatures, and Inconel 718 is one of that. The complexity in realizing complex and intricate shapes necessitate the product realization through additive manufacturing. This paper aims to investigate the wear behaviour of additive manufactured material.Design/methodology/approachThe wear behaviour of additively manufactured Inconel 718 samples through direct metal laser sintering process at three different build orientations was experimentally investigated using a standard pin-on-disc wear tester.FindingsAmong the varied wear parameters, the load was identified as the most influencing parameter on the wear rate. In addition, the post-failure analysis of the worn surface of the pins under the scanning electron microscopy revealed the presence of various wear mechanisms.Originality/valueAlmost, the industries are now focussed on their production through additive manufacturing owing to its advantages. The present work displays the wear behaviour of the additive manufactured Inconel 718 and its associated wear mechanisms.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: .


Authors

Anandakrishnan, V.;  Sathish, S.;  Muthukannan, Duraiselvam;  Dillibabu, V.;  Balamuralikrishnan, N.

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author
Contributors on Publons
  • 2 authors
  • 2 reviewers
Followers on Publons
  • pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2019/11/20

    20-Nov-2019


    Dear V, Anandakrishnan; S, Sathish; Muthukannan, Duraiselvam; V, Dillibabu; N, Balamuralikrishnan


    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript ilt-08-2019-0322.R3, entitled "DRY SLIDING WEAR BEHAVIOR OF INCONEL 718 ADDITIVELY MANUFACTURED BY DMLS TECHNIQUE" 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,
    Assoc. Prof. Mohd Fadzli Bin Abdollah
    Guest Editor, Industrial Lubrication and Tribology
    mohdfadzli@utem.edu.my, mohdfadzliabdollah@gmail.com

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Author Response
    2019/11/20

    Response to review comments


    The authors are thankful for the constructive comments. The manuscript is revised and the same is highlighted in the manuscript, as instructed by the reviewer.


    Reviewer: 1
    1. Comment: Although the authors partially answered the reviewers' questions, the modifications relating to the questions have not been fully included or respented or highlighted in the manuscript R2.

    Response: By considering the previous review comments (submitted - R2) and the present comments, the manuscript is revised and the modifications are highlighted in the manuscript.



    1. Comment: The authors are suggested consider to include the content of their answers to reviewers to complement the manuscript.
      Response: As per the suggestion, the contents of the modifications made in the manuscript were quoted under the appropriate answers and also highlighted in the revised manuscript.


    Additional Questions:



    1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: yes
      Response: The authors convey their gratitude for the positive comment.


    2. 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 significant work ignored? : The literature review is suggested to be summarized with wider scope of relevant nickel-based super alloys. (the authors did not consider this in their manuscript R2)
      Response: As suggested by the reviewer, the summary of the literature with wider scope of nickel-based super alloys is included in the manuscript and the same is provided below.
      “The literature explored the significance of super alloy Inconel 718 under the elevated temperature conditions. Additive manufacturing provides a solution to the intricacy in realizing a component having a complex geometries and intricate profiles. Also, it is perceived that the analysis of additive material in view of tribological aspects is mandate. It is observed that there is no attempt made on the tribological analysis of additive manufactured IN718 build under three build orientations. Hence, the present study focuses on the investigation of the wear behaviour of DMLS additively manufactured Inconel 718 built in three different build orientations based on Taguchi’s L9 orthogonal experimental plan.”




    3. 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?: Generally, Yes; though innovation of the methodology is not prominent
      Response: The work presented in the manuscript is carried out as per ASTM G99 standards and the influence of wear parameters is analysed with well-defined Statistical analysis by employing Taguchi design of experiments. Further, the associated wear mechanisms of the worn material were analysed under microscopic level using scanning electron microscopy and the interpretation of results is performed in line with the base theory and concepts of tribology with suitable citations.




    4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Generally OK. But more insightful analyses of the experimental results are expected. (the authors did not consider this in their manuscript R2)
      Response: The insightful analysis of the dry sliding wear test is to find the influencing parameters, significance of the parameters, optimal parameters for minimum wear and the analysis of dominant wear mechanisms to justify the wear behavior.
      In this context, with the results obtained from the dry sliding wear test, the influence of parameters on the wear behavior of IN718 DMLS material is analysed and the dominance of parameters are identified and reported in section 3.2.1. Also, the optimal parameter to accomplish minimum wear is identified and reported in section 3.2.1.
      The influence of parameter on wear rate is discussed with the support of contour plot (a graphical representation). Further, to predict the wear, an empirical model is developed using regression analysis and reported in section 3.2.3.
      The wear mechanisms that causes the variations in wear is analysed through worn surface analysis using scanning electron microscopic images and the interpretation of results is also performed in line with the base theory and concepts of tribology with suitable citations.




    5. Practicality and/or Research implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Yes
      Response: The authors convey their gratitude for the positive comment.




    6. 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.: More attentions are needed to be paid to the clarity of expression and readability of the manuscript.
      Response: As suggested, the entire manuscript is thoroughly checked and revised for better clarity of expression and readability.




    7. Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: More comprehensive information are needed to reproduce the research results, especially the justification of the pre-selected DMLS parameters. (the authors partially answered the reviewers' question on this; but authors did not reprsent or include this in their manuscript R2)
      Response: The nickel-based super alloy is fabricated in Direct Metal Laser Sintering process with the parameters identified based on pilot trial experiments to obtain visible defect free samples as per the procedure provided by the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) of the DMLS equipment EOS M280. Indeed the parameters are identified by performing different pilot experiments by varying the possible parameters. From the obtained optimum parameters the samples are fabricated in different built orientations. The details provided are also found to be sufficient to reproduce the samples in any DMLS equipment. The above detail is also included in the revised manuscript as below.
      “Based on the standard initial pilot experiments on a standard EOS M280 DMLS equipment, the parameters of 285 Watts power, 970 m/s scan speed, 0.15 mm hatch distance, 40 microns layer thickness and 0.08 mm beam diameter were identified as optimum parameters to realize the samples with the required build orientation”




    With all the above, the authors believe that the revised manuscript will satisfy the expectations of the reviewers and editors. Once again the authors would like to express their gratitude for considering the manuscript for its publication in the esteemed journal Industrial Lubrication and Tribology.



    Cite this author response
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 3)
    Decision Letter
    2019/11/03

    03-Nov-2019


    Dear Dr. V:


    Manuscript ID ilt-08-2019-0322.R2 entitled "DRY SLIDING WEAR BEHAVIOR OF INCONEL 718 ADDITIVELY MANUFACTURED BY DMLS TECHNIQUE" 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 03-Dec-2019 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.


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


    Sincerely,
    Assoc. Prof. Mohd Fadzli Bin Abdollah
    Guest Editor, Industrial Lubrication and Tribology
    mohdfadzli@utem.edu.my, mohdfadzliabdollah@gmail.com


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


    Comments to the Author
    Although the authors partially answered the reviewers' questions, the modifications relating to the questions have not been fully included or respented or highlighted in the manuscript R2.

    The authors are suggested consider to include the content of their answers to reviewers to complement the manuscript.
    Reviewer: 1


    Recommendation: Minor Revision


    Comments:
    Although the authors partially answered the reviewers' questions, the modifications relating to the questions have not been fully included or respented or highlighted in the manuscript R2.

    The authors are suggested consider to include the content of their answers to reviewers to complement the manuscript.


    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?: the literature review is suggested to be summarized with wider scope of relevant nickel-based superalloys.
    (the authors did not consider this in their manuscript R2)


    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?: Generally, Yes; though innovation of the methodology is not prominent


    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Generally OK. But more insightful analyses of the experimental results are expected.
    (the authors did not consider this in their manuscript R2)


    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.: More attentions are needed to be paid to the clarity of expression and readability of the manuscript.


    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: More comprehensive information are needed to reproduce the research results, especially the justification of the pre-selected DMLS parameters
    (the authors partially answered the reviewers' question on this; but authors did not reprsent or include this in their manuscript R2)


    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: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Reviewer report
    2019/11/01

    Although the authors partially answered the reviewers' questions, the modifications relating to the questions have not been fully included or respented or highlighted in the manuscript R2.
    The authors are suggested consider to include the content of their answers to reviewers to complement the manuscript.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Author Response
    2019/10/16

    Response to review comment


    Reviewer: 1
    The manuscript experimentally investigated the dry sliding wear for the DMLS AMed Inconel 718 material and suggested the most influential factor, load, as the main factor affecting the final wear rate. Corresponding DoE and confirmation test were arranged; regressive analyses were implemented. However, the result analysis was insufficient; more discussion are suggested for the Section 3. Besides, the authors are suggested to emphasize the significance of this research and its potential applications.


    To meet the high standard of journal of ILT, there were some detailed things the authors were suggested to pay attention to their manuscript


    Comment 1: For the parameters adopted for depositing the samples (285 W laser power, 970m/s scan speed, 0.15mm hatch distance, ...), it is suggested author gave more explanations about why they are selected from the manufacturer. Or, justification of the feasibility of the pre-selected parameters will be necessary to be included in the manuscript;
    Response: The aim of the authors is to develop the Inconel 718 material through direct metal laser sintering technique. In discussion with the manufacturer, it is identified that they performed different pilot experiments with the variations in possible parameters in EOS M280. From the pilot experiments, they attained the suitable parameters to realize the Inconel material as specified without defects. Based on the technical discussion, the parameters were considered for present work.


    Comment 2: for the wear weight and wear rate, did the author use one-off measured values, or have repeated the wear test and then used an averaged values? Please specify in the manuscript;
    Response: The experiments were repeated thrice and the mass loss were measured and taken average. The average value of wear loss was used to calculate the wear rate of the Inconel 718. As suggested the details were added in the revised manuscript.


    Comment 3: More information and explanation about the confirmation test are expected in the Section 3.2.4.
    Response: As suggested, more explanation was added in section 3.2.4.
    “The parameter combination of load of 10N, build orientation of 45 degree and sliding velocity of 1 m/s was identified as optimal level through main effect plot. With the optimal level, the minimum wear rate of 0.0001954 mm3/m was predicted through the Taguchi prediction. Also, the dry sliding wear experiment was conducted with the optimal level and the wear rate was calculated 0.0002048 mm3/m. The comparison of the predicted and experimental value exhibits an error of 4.59% which shows a good sign of correlation.”


    Comment 4: Figure 2 and 5 are needed an improvement to achieve the highest standard of Industrial Lubrication and Tribology.
    Response: As per suggestion, improved image of 300 dots per inch is replaced in the manuscript.


    Comment 5: More attentions are needed to be paid to the clarity of expression and readability of the manuscript.
    Response: As suggested, the entire manuscript is checked and corrected for its better readability and expression of manuscript.



    Cite this author response
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 2)
    Decision Letter
    2019/09/19

    19-Sep-2019


    Dear Dr. V:


    Manuscript ID ilt-08-2019-0322.R1 entitled "DRY SLIDING WEAR BEHAVIOR OF INCONEL 718 ADDITIVELY MANUFACTURED BY DMLS TECHNIQUE" 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 18-Dec-2019 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.


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


    Sincerely,
    Assoc. Prof. Mohd Fadzli Bin Abdollah
    Guest Editor, Industrial Lubrication and Tribology
    mohdfadzli@utem.edu.my, mohdfadzliabdollah@gmail.com


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


    Comments to the Author
    The manuscript experimentally investigated the dry sliding wear for the DMLS AMed Inconel 718 material and suggested the most influential factor, load, as the main factor affecting the final wear rate. Corresponding DoE and confirmation test were arranged; regressive analyses were implemented. However, the result analysis was insufficient; more discussion are suggested for the Section 3. Besides, the authors are suggested to emphasize the significance of this research and its potential applications.


    To meet the high standard of journal of ILT, there were some detailed things the authors were suggested to pay attention to their manuscript


    (1) For the parameters adopted for depositing the samples (285 W laser power, 970m/s scan speed, 0.15mm hatch distance, ...) , it is suggested author gave more explanations about why they are selected from the manufacturer. Or, justification of the feasibility of the pre-selected parameters will be necessary to be included in the manuscript;
    (2) for the wear weight and wear rate, did the author use one-off measured values, or have repeated the wear test and then used an averaged values? Please specify in the manuscript;
    (3) More information and explanation about the confirmation test are expected in the Section 3.2.4.
    (4) Figure 2 and 5 are needed an improvement to achieve the highest standard of Industrial Lubrication and Tribology.
    (5) More attentions are needed to be paid to the clarity of expression and readability of the manuscript.


    Reviewer: 2


    Comments to the Author
    The Manuscript submitted was thoroughly checked and found it was revised as per the review comments .Hence the article may consider for publication.
    Reviewer: 1


    Recommendation: Major Revision


    Comments:
    The manuscript experimentally investigated the dry sliding wear for the DMLS AMed Inconel 718 material and suggested the most influential factor, load, as the main factor affecting the final wear rate. Corresponding DoE and confirmation test were arranged; regressive analyses were implemented. However, the result analysis was insufficient; more discussion are suggested for the Section 3. Besides, the authors are suggested to emphasize the significance of this research and its potential applications.


    To meet the high standard of journal of ILT, there were some detailed things the authors were suggested to pay attention to their manuscript


    (1) For the parameters adopted for depositing the samples (285 W laser power, 970m/s scan speed, 0.15mm hatch distance, ...) , it is suggested author gave more explanations about why they are selected from the manufacturer. Or, justification of the feasibility of the pre-selected parameters will be necessary to be included in the manuscript;
    (2) for the wear weight and wear rate, did the author use one-off measured values, or have repeated the wear test and then used an averaged values? Please specify in the manuscript;
    (3) More information and explanation about the confirmation test are expected in the Section 3.2.4.
    (4) Figure 2 and 5 are needed an improvement to achieve the highest standard of Industrial Lubrication and Tribology.
    (5) More attentions are needed to be paid to the clarity of expression and readability of the manuscript.


    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?: the literature review is suggested to be summarized with wider scope of relevant nickel-based superalloys


    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?: Generally, Yes; though innovation of the methodology is not prominent


    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Generally OK. But more insightful analyses of the experimental results are expected.


    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.: More attentions are needed to be paid to the clarity of expression and readability of the manuscript.


    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: more comprehensive information are needed to reproduce the research results, especially the justification of the pre-selected DMLS parameters


    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: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons


    Reviewer: 2


    Recommendation: Accept


    Comments:
    The Manuscript submitted was thoroughly checked and found it was revised as per the review comments .Hence the article may consider for publication.


    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?: yes


    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: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Reviewer report
    2019/09/16

    The Manuscript submitted was thoroughly checked and found it was revised as per the review comments .Hence the article may consider for publication.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Reviewer report
    2019/09/14

    The manuscript experimentally investigated the dry sliding wear for the DMLS AMed Inconel 718 material and suggested the most influential factor, load, as the main factor affecting the final wear rate. Corresponding DoE and confirmation test were arranged; regressive analyses were implemented. However, the result analysis was insufficient; more discussion are suggested for the Section 3. Besides, the authors are suggested to emphasize the significance of this research and its potential applications.

    To meet the high standard of journal of ILT, there were some detailed things the authors were suggested to pay attention to their manuscript

    (1) For the parameters adopted for depositing the samples (285 W laser power, 970m/s scan speed, 0.15mm hatch distance, ...) , it is suggested author gave more explanations about why they are selected from the manufacturer. Or, justification of the feasibility of the pre-selected parameters will be necessary to be included in the manuscript;
    (2) for the wear weight and wear rate, did the author use one-off measured values, or have repeated the wear test and then used an averaged values? Please specify in the manuscript;
    (3) More information and explanation about the confirmation test are expected in the Section 3.2.4.
    (4) Figure 2 and 5 are needed an improvement to achieve the highest standard of Industrial Lubrication and Tribology.
    (5) More attentions are needed to be paid to the clarity of expression and readability of the manuscript.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Author Response
    2019/09/07

    Response to reviewer Comments


    Reviewer: 1
    Comment 1: Justify the reason for opting the Taguchi analysis.
    Response: Taguchi techniques are the most widely accepted and used technique to optimize and analyze the test parameters. Also, without affecting the quality of experimentation, the number experimental runs can be minimized. The present work scopes in the additive manufacturing of Inconel 718, which results in higher production cost. Hence in order to minimize the number experimental runs, Taguchi technique is employed for the analysis.
    Comment 2: Why L9 orthogonal design is selected? How the parameters were confined.
    Response: As mentioned above, the number of the experiment needs to be reduced without affecting the quality of the analysis. In dry sliding wear experiments, the most critical parameters considered are load, sliding velocity and sliding distance. Based on the literature, the parameters and its levels were fixed, and the same was cited with the reference in the manuscript (Baskaran et al., 2014; Jia & Gu, 2014; Thirugnanasambantham & Natarajan, 2016). The least adequate number of experiments for the identified parameter and levels are L9 orthogonal design.
    Comment 3: What is the contact stress induced on the pin surface during sliding?
    Response: The wear samples were experimented under three different loads namely 9.81 N, 19.62 N and 29.43 N. The contact stress induced in the samples corresponding to the applied load are 0.195163749 N/mm2, 0.390327498 N/mm2 and 0.585491247 N/mm2.
    Comment 4: In metallurgical analysis, peaks of individual phases may include in description with the plane indices or phase reference number.
    Response: As per the reviewer suggestion, the details of phases with reference number were added in the manuscript.
    Comment 5: The regression coefficient obtained for the given equation (2) is not mentioned in the manuscript. It may be specified.
    Response: As per the reviewer suggestion, the regression coefficient was added in the manuscript.
    Comment 6: Clearly specify the wear mechanisms observed from Fig 5(a&b).
    Response: The discussion about the wear mechanisms were discussed clearly, and the observed mechanisms were mentioned as per the reviewer suggestion.
    Comment 7: Some more inference from Fig 5a may added
    Response: As per the reviewer suggestion, the additional inference was added in the manuscript.
    Comment 8: Include the inference for increase or decrease in wear rate
    Response: As per the reviewer suggestion, inference for increase or decrease in wear rate was added in the manuscript.
    Comment 9: Few Grammar mistakes are there, hence the article may checked to remove grammatical errors.
    Response: As per the reviewer suggestion, the manuscript was checked and the grammar errors were removed using the Grammarly software.
    Comment 10: Notified typographical errors. Check and correct the manuscript
    Response: The manuscript was thoroughly checked, and the errors were removed.


    Reviewer: 2
    Comment 1: Add few more literature related optimization of wear parameters in the introduction part.
    Response: As per the reviewer suggestion, the optimization literature were included in the manuscript.
    Comment 2: Usually sliding distance is considered as a significant parameter for investigating the wear behaviour of materials, but in the present study is not considered as a parameter, why? Indicate how much sliding distance was considered during wear test to calculate wear rate.
    Response: It was well known that the increase sliding distance will directly increase the wear. In the present work, the sliding distance was considered, and it was as constant of 2000 m.
    Comment 3: How the density of printed Inconel 718 was measured?
    Response: The density of the additive manufactured samples were measured using the Archimedes principles.
    Comment 4: State the importance of surface roughness of mating surfaces especially during wear and why it was maintained close to 1µm?
    Response: As per the ASTM G99 standards, the wear test samples need to be prepared with the specified dimensions and pin ends is to be grounded to accomplish a surface roughness of 0.8µm. In the present work, the samples average surface roughness is obtained as 0.72 µm. Hence in the manuscript it was mentioned as closer to 1µm.
    Comment 5: In section 3.2.1, the author stated that load has the strongest influence on wear rate. How this statement has arrived?

    Response: To identify the parameter influence, analysis of variance was carried out which express the significant parameter by means of lesser probability percentage i.e., probability value is less than 0.05. The inference was added in the manuscript as “the probability value of load is observed to be lesser than 0.05, which shows it is significant and others are found greater than 0.05”.
    Comment 6: In section, 3.2.3, state correlation of wear rate with the input parameters properly using the regression equation.

    Response: As per the reviewer suggestion, the correlation of wear rate was included in the manuscript.
    Comment 7: In section 3.2.4, state how the optimized parameters are identified and include the results of confirmation test.
    Response: The optimized parameters was identified through the main effect plot. As per the reviewer suggestion, the results of confirmation test were included in the manuscript.



    Cite this author response
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2019/08/23

    23-Aug-2019


    Dear Dr. V:


    Manuscript ID ilt-08-2019-0322 entitled "DRY SLIDING WEAR BEHAVIOR OF INCONEL 718 ADDITIVELY MANUFACTURED BY DMLS TECHNIQUE" 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 publication, but also suggest some minor revisions to your manuscript. 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 colored text.


    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre.


    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.


    Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to the Industrial Lubrication and Tribology, your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as possible. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.


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


    Sincerely,
    Assoc. Prof. Mohd Fadzli Bin Abdollah
    Guest Editor, Industrial Lubrication and Tribology
    mohdfadzli@utem.edu.my, mohdfadzliabdollah@gmail.com


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


    Comments to the Author
    Following comments may addressed to improve manuscript quality.
    • Justify the reason for opting the Taguchi analysis.
    • Why L9 orthogonal design is selected? How the parameters were confined.
    • What is the contact stress induced on the pin surface during sliding?
    • In metallurgical analysis, peaks of individual phases may include in description with the plane indices or phase reference number.
    • The regression coefficient obtained for the given equation (2) is not mentioned in the manuscript. It may be specified.
    • Clearly specify the wear mechanisms observed from Fig 5(a&b).
    • Some more inference from Fig 5a may added
    • Include the inference for increase or decrease in wear rate
    • Few Grammar mistakes are there, hence the article may checked to remove grammatical errors.
    • Notified typographical errors. Check and correct the manuscript


    Reviewer: 2


    Comments to the Author
    In this present study, the authors have done the good work related developing Inconel 718 materials by additive manufacturing (AM) method. This will lead the scope of manufacturing the different materials by additive manufacturing. Also, the authors have studied and investigated the dry sliding wear behavior of additively manufactured Inconel 718 appropriately by standard Pin on disc method. Before considering for publication the authors have to answer for the following comments



    1. Add few more literatures related optimization of wear parameters in the introduction part.

    2. Usually sliding distance is considered as a significant parameter for investigating the wear behaviour of materials, but in the present study is not considered as a parameter, why? Indicate how much sliding distance was considered during wear test to calculate wear rate.

    3. How the density of printed Inconel 718 was measured?

    4. State the importance of surface roughness of mating surfaces especially during wear and why it was maintained close to 1µm?

    5. In section 3.2.1, the author stated that load has the strongest influence on wear rate. How this statement has arrived?

    6. In section, 3.2.3, state correlation of wear rate with the input parameters properly using the regression equation.

    7. In section 3.2.4, state how the optimized parameters are identified and include the results of confirmation test.
      Reviewer: 1


    Recommendation: Minor Revision


    Comments:
    Following comments may addressed to improve manuscript quality.
    • Justify the reason for opting the Taguchi analysis.
    • Why L9 orthogonal design is selected? How the parameters were confined.
    • What is the contact stress induced on the pin surface during sliding?
    • In metallurgical analysis, peaks of individual phases may include in description with the plane indices or phase reference number.
    • The regression coefficient obtained for the given equation (2) is not mentioned in the manuscript. It may be specified.
    • Clearly specify the wear mechanisms observed from Fig 5(a&b).
    • Some more inference from Fig 5a may added
    • Include the inference for increase or decrease in wear rate
    • Few Grammar mistakes are there, hence the article may checked to remove grammatical errors.
    • Notified typographical errors. Check and correct the manuscript


    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: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons


    Reviewer: 2


    Recommendation: Accept


    Comments:
    In this present study, the authors have done the good work related developing Inconel 718 materials by additive manufacturing (AM) method. This will lead the scope of manufacturing the different materials by additive manufacturing. Also, the authors have studied and investigated the dry sliding wear behavior of additively manufactured Inconel 718 appropriately by standard Pin on disc method. Before considering for publication the authors have to answer for the following comments



    1. Add few more literatures related optimization of wear parameters in the introduction part.

    2. Usually sliding distance is considered as a significant parameter for investigating the wear behaviour of materials, but in the present study is not considered as a parameter, why? Indicate how much sliding distance was considered during wear test to calculate wear rate.

    3. How the density of printed Inconel 718 was measured?

    4. State the importance of surface roughness of mating surfaces especially during wear and why it was maintained close to 1µm?

    5. In section 3.2.1, the author stated that load has the strongest influence on wear rate. How this statement has arrived?

    6. In section, 3.2.3, state correlation of wear rate with the input parameters properly using the regression equation.

    7. In section 3.2.4, state how the optimized parameters are identified and include the results of confirmation test.


    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, few more literature related optimization of wear parameters should be added in the introduction part


    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?: The methodology of the present work is carried out properly and the authors presented their findings/concepts, approach, purpose of the study clearly.


    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Yes, the authors are clearly analyzed the results with proper justification.


    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 authors are fabricated Inconel 718 material through direct metal laser sintering process at three different build orientations. This will lead the further research on manufacturing of different materials by direct metal laser sintering process. Also, the authors studied the effect of build orientations on wear behavior of additively manufactured Inconel 718.


    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?: Yes


    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: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Reviewer report
    2019/08/21

    In this present study, the authors have done the good work related developing Inconel 718 materials by additive manufacturing (AM) method. This will lead the scope of manufacturing the different materials by additive manufacturing. Also, the authors have studied and investigated the dry sliding wear behavior of additively manufactured Inconel 718 appropriately by standard Pin on disc method. Before considering for publication the authors have to answer for the following comments

    1. Add few more literatures related optimization of wear parameters in the introduction part.
    2. Usually sliding distance is considered as a significant parameter for investigating the wear behaviour of materials, but in the present study is not considered as a parameter, why? Indicate how much sliding distance was considered during wear test to calculate wear rate.
    3. How the density of printed Inconel 718 was measured?
    4. State the importance of surface roughness of mating surfaces especially during wear and why it was maintained close to 1µm?
    5. In section 3.2.1, the author stated that load has the strongest influence on wear rate. How this statement has arrived?
    6. In section, 3.2.3, state correlation of wear rate with the input parameters properly using the regression equation.
    7. In section 3.2.4, state how the optimized parameters are identified and include the results of confirmation test.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Reviewer report
    2019/08/17

    Following comments may addressed to improve manuscript quality.
    • Justify the reason for opting the Taguchi analysis.
    • Why L9 orthogonal design is selected? How the parameters were confined.
    • What is the contact stress induced on the pin surface during sliding?
    • In metallurgical analysis, peaks of individual phases may include in description with the plane indices or phase reference number.
    • The regression coefficient obtained for the given equation (2) is not mentioned in the manuscript. It may be specified.
    • Clearly specify the wear mechanisms observed from Fig 5(a&b).
    • Some more inference from Fig 5a may added
    • Include the inference for increase or decrease in wear rate
    • Few Grammar mistakes are there, hence the article may checked to remove grammatical errors.
    • Notified typographical errors. Check and correct the manuscript

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
All peer review content displayed here is covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.