Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to examine the fretting wear property of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE)-based composites reinforced by different content of attapulgite.Design/methodology/approachA series of composites were prepared by a hot-pressing method. Fretting tests were carried out using an SRV-IV oscillating reciprocating friction wear tester with a load of 10 N and a frequency of 100 Hz. The morphology of the fracture structure and the worn surface was observed by field-emission scanning electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction and a non-contact three dimensional surface profiler.FindingsWith the addition of attapulgite, the microstructure of the composites become more regular, and their heat resistance improved. Furthermore, the friction coefficient and the specific wear rate of the composites with lower filler content reduced compared with that of neat UHMWPE, and the optimum filler content is 1 per cent.Originality/valueThe study investigated the fretting resistance mechanism of the attapulgite in the UHMWPE matrix. The results could help to provide some experimental evidence for the broader application of silicates on the fretting wear resistance of polymers.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/ILT-10-2019-0420/


Authors

Meng, Zhaqiie;  Wang, Yunxia;  Xin, Xiaocui;  Liu, Hao;  Yan, Yunfeng;  Yan, Fengyuan

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author

No Publons users have claimed this paper.

  • pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2020/02/02

    02-Feb-2020

    Dear Meng, Zhaojie; Wang, yunxia; Xin, Xiaocui; Liu, Hao; Yan, Yunfeng; Yan, Fengyuan

    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript ilt-10-2019-0420.R1, entitled "Effects of attapulgite on the worn surface and fretting wear resistance property of UHMWPE composites" 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
    2020/02/02

    The revised paper can be published,

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2020/02/01

    Letter to editor
    Dear Editor,
    Thanks for the instructive comments on our manuscript entitled “Effects of attapulgite on the worn surface and fretting resistance property of UHMWPE composites” (ilt-10-2019-0420). These comments are valuable and very helpful for improving our paper. We have revised the manuscript according to the comments given by the reviewers. The revisions were highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. We hope that the revisions can make the questions raised by the reviewers clear.
    We appreciate your consideration for our manuscript, and we look forward to hearing from you soon. Any further information and suggestions are greatly appreciated.
    Thank you very much for your consideration!
    With best regards,
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Yunxia Wang
    Corresponding author
    State Key Laboratory of Solid Lubrication
    Lanzhou Institute of Chemical Physics, CAS
    Tianshui MidRoad 18#, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China.
    Phone: +86-0931-4968300, Fax: +86-0931-8277088
    E-mail: yunxiawang@licp.cas.cn

    Response to reviewers
    Reviewer: 1
    Comments to the Author
    1. Please add information about the relative humidity.
    Response: The relative humidity of the experimental environment is 25%~35%. This has been added in the revised manuscript.
    2. Why the normal load was so low?
    Response: The steel ball is hard, while the UHMWPE is relatively soft. The contact mode of the steel ball and the UHMWPE or its composite is point-contact (as shown in Figure 7), in which serious plastic deformation of UHMWPE would be easily caused by load not very large. Hence, a light load of 10 N is chosen to avoid plastic deformation of the counterpart.
    3. Please add details about the measurement of the surface topography. Please also describe the surface profiler.
    Response: We have added some details about the surface topography measurement in the revised manuscript. The contents added are shown below:
    The surface topography of worn surface is observed by a scanning electron microscope (SEM, JSM-56 01LV, Japan Electron Optics Laboratory, Japan) and an optical microscope (OLYMPUS BX51, Olympus Corporation, Japan) assisted by a non-contact three dimensional surface profiler (Micro XAM-800, KLA-Tencor, USA).
    4. Figure 4a – please discuss different shapes of the presented curves.
    Response: The discussion of the friction coefficient curves are added in the revised manuscript, as shown below:
    “The friction coefficient of composites increases rapidly with increasing time in the running-in period. After the stage, the friction coefficients of neat UHMWPE, 4% UAG and 6% UAG still keep a moderate rising tendency. However, the curves of 0.5% UAG and 2% UAG are basically stable in this stage, while the friction coefficient of 1% UAG decreases.”
    5. How have you measured the average friction coefficient?
    Response: The dynamic friction coefficient is measured by the SRV-IV oscillating reciprocating friction wear tester, and the average friction coefficient is taken from the average value of the dynamic friction coefficient. By the way, the friction experiment repeated at least three times for each composite.
    6. Please describe the method of volumetric wear assessment.
    Response: After each fretting test, the wear scar on the materials is scanned by a non-contact three dimensional surface profiler. The volume of the scar, which is the volumetric wear loss, is calculated by an integrating method. Corresponding revision has been made in the revised manuscript.
    7. Please add the results of the measurement of wear of balls.
    Response: Thank you for your comments. Actually, the steel ball has hardly any wear loss while fretting against these soft materials. The morphology of the steel ball in Figure 6 is formed by the transferred objects. According to your comment, the diameter of the transfer film on the steel ball has been measured, and the details are shown in Figure 6.

    Reviewer: 2
    Comments to the Author
    The authors present an experimental evaluation of the effect of attapulgite on fretting wear of UHMWPE. Below is a list of issues that need to be addressed before the paper can be published.
    Thank you very much for your professional comments and constructive suggestion on our manuscript. The comments and suggestion you have mentioned are significant for improving our manuscript. According to your suggestion, the manuscript has been carefully revised, and our point-to-point responses are listed as follows.
    1. English language needs significant revision. The paper is hardly understandable at times.
    Response: We are very sorry for our incorrect writing and grammatical mistakes in the manuscript. According to your suggestion, we have carefully revised the whole paper to improve the writing of the paper. The relevant modifications were provided and marked red in the revised manuscript.
    2. It is difficult to distinguish between language and terminology problems, but it seems like the authors have to re-read some basic references (e.g., Tribol. Lett. 17 (2004) 569-573). First of all, fretting is a type of motion, and it is incorrect to say “anti-fretting property” (title) or “anti-fretting mechanism” (abstract). Next, fretting is not “a branch of tribology”, and it cannot “be defined as a form of friction”. The statements like “abrasions caused by fretting wear are hard to be found during the assembly of components” or “a massive debris accumulation at the side of the fretting regime” are puzzling.
    Response: Thank you very much to point out the lauguage issues in our manuscript. We have carefully modified the misused words in the revised manuscript. According to your comments, all the “anti-fretting” in our manuscript have been revised as “fretting wear resistance”. Furthermore, the description of “fretting wear” has been amended. The sentence was revised from “As a significant branch of tribology, fretting can be defined as a form of friction that occurs when two contact surfaces have reciprocating motion with extremely small stroke” to “Fretting is a branch of science that studies fretting wear mechanism, damage, detection, and prevention. Fretting wear occurs when two contact surfaces have reciprocating motion with extremely small stroke.”
    As the reviewer pointed out, the statements with confused meaning has been carefully amended. The sentence of “Because of the imperceptible relative motion, abrasions caused by fretting wear are hard to be found during the assembly of components” has been revised as “Because of the imperceptible relative motion, fretting wear that existed in mechanical components is apt to be neglected in the initial stage.”
    The sentence “There also has a massive debris accumulation at the side of the fretting regime” in section 3, has been amended as “A large area of material extrusion piled up on the edge of wear zone.”
    3. The authors also seem to be confused about different types of wear (adhesive, abrasive and fretting). They are recommended to take a look at wear classification schemes (e.g., Friction 1 (4), 333-340).
    Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The classification schemes mentioned in the relevant reference has been carefully studied. We have revised the misleading statements like “adhesive wear” and “abrasive wear” in the revised paper. The sentence “The 1% UAG has lower plastic deformation than that of UHMWPE, and slighter scratch than that of 6% UAG, which means the adhesion wear of 1% UAG reduces and the abrasive wear increases” in section 3.3.2 has been revised as “The 1% UAG has lower plastic deformation than that of UHMWPE, and slighter scratch than that of 6% UAG, which means the adhesion effect caused by concentrated friction heat reduces and the wear raised by hard micro-asperities on the steel ball increases.”
    4. EDS maps shown in Fig. 6 do not support the conclusions made.
    Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added another figure about the element content of the 6% UAG worn surface, which will help to support the conclusion. The specific contents are shown below:
    “Figure R1 shows the distribution and mass fraction of C and Si on the worn surface of 6% UAG before and after the fretting wear in the same area. The C element is concentrated in the worn area. On the contrary, the Si element becomes sparse. Accordingly, after the fretting wear, the mass fractions of Si, O, Mg, and Al are all reduced and are almost 1/3 of what they were before. This suggests that the attapulgite is exfoliated out from the composite matrix and transferred onto the steel ball during the fretting test.”

    Figure R1 SEM image, element distribution and mass fraction of C, Si elements of 6% UAG before (a) and after (b) fretting against GCr 15 steel ball.
    5. Figure 7 is not clear, failing to explain the difference between 3 studied cases.
    Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The wear mechanism diagram about UHMWPE and the composites fretting against steel ball has been adjusted, the updated diagrams are shown below:

    Figure 7 The mechanism diagram of UHMWPE and the composites fretting against GCr 15 steel ball.
    6. In general, the observations made have to be explained. Currently, it is not clear why the presented results are obtained, and the explanations are cursory or absent.
    Response: Thank you for your comments. We have carefully revised the explanation of the observation, and the reason why we obtained the results has been explained as clear as we can in the revised manuscript.
    Additional Reference
    Varenberg, M., Etsion, I. & Halperin, G. (2004), "Slip index: a new unified approach to fretting", Tribology Letters, Vol. 17, pp. 569-573.
    Varenberg, M. (2013), "Towards a unified classification of wear", Friction, Vol. 1, pp. 333-340.



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2019/12/02

    02-Dec-2019

    Dear Mrs. Wang:

    Manuscript ID ilt-10-2019-0420 entitled "Effects of attapulgite on the worn surface and anti-fretting property of UHMWPE composites" 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 01-Mar-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.

    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 add information about the relative humidity.
    Why the normal load was so low?
    Please add details about the measurement of the surface topography. Please also describe the surface profiler.
    Figure 4a – please discuss different shapes of the presented curves.
    How have you measured the average friction coefficient?
    Please describe the method of volumetric wear assessment.
    Please add the results of the measurement of wear of balls.

    Reviewer: 2

    Comments to the Author
    The authors present an experimental evaluation of the effect of attapulgite on fretting wear of UHMWPE. Below is a list of issues that need to be addressed before the paper can be published.

    1. English language needs significant revision. The paper is hardly understandable at times.

    2. It is difficult to distinguish between language and terminology problems, but it seems like the authors have to re-read some basic references (e.g., Tribol. Lett. 17 (2004) 569-573). First of all, fretting is a type of motion, and it is incorrect to say “anti-fretting property” (title) or “anti-fretting mechanism” (abstract). Next, fretting is not “a branch of tribology”, and it cannot “be defined as a form of friction”. The statements like “abrasions caused by fretting wear are hard to be found during the assembly of components” or “a massive debris accumulation at the side of the fretting regime” are puzzling.

    3. The authors also seem to be confused about different types of wear (adhesive, abrasive and fretting). They are recommended to take a look at wear classification schemes (e.g., Friction 1 (4), 333-340).

    4. EDS maps shown in Fig. 6 do not support the conclusions made.

    5. Figure 7 is not clear, failing to explain the difference between 3 studied cases.

    6. In general, the observations made have to be explained. Currently, it is not clear why the presented results are obtained, and the explanations are cursory or absent.
      Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Major Revision

    Comments:
    Please add information about the relative humidity.
    Why the normal load was so low?
    Please add details about the measurement of the surface topography. Please also describe the surface profiler.
    Figure 4a – please discuss different shapes of the presented curves.
    How have you measured the average friction coefficient?
    Please describe the method of volumetric wear assessment.
    Please add the results of the measurement of wear of balls.

    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?: Experimental details should be extended.

    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: Major Revision

    Comments:
    The authors present an experimental evaluation of the effect of attapulgite on fretting wear of UHMWPE. Below is a list of issues that need to be addressed before the paper can be published.

    1. English language needs significant revision. The paper is hardly understandable at times.

    2. It is difficult to distinguish between language and terminology problems, but it seems like the authors have to re-read some basic references (e.g., Tribol. Lett. 17 (2004) 569-573). First of all, fretting is a type of motion, and it is incorrect to say “anti-fretting property” (title) or “anti-fretting mechanism” (abstract). Next, fretting is not “a branch of tribology”, and it cannot “be defined as a form of friction”. The statements like “abrasions caused by fretting wear are hard to be found during the assembly of components” or “a massive debris accumulation at the side of the fretting regime” are puzzling.

    3. The authors also seem to be confused about different types of wear (adhesive, abrasive and fretting). They are recommended to take a look at wear classification schemes (e.g., Friction 1 (4), 333-340).

    4. EDS maps shown in Fig. 6 do not support the conclusions made.

    5. Figure 7 is not clear, failing to explain the difference between 3 studied cases.

    6. In general, the observations made have to be explained. Currently, it is not clear why the presented results are obtained, and the explanations are cursory or absent.

    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?: No

    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?: No

    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?: No

    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.: No

    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
    Reviewer report
    2019/12/02

    The authors present an experimental evaluation of the effect of attapulgite on fretting wear of UHMWPE. Below is a list of issues that need to be addressed before the paper can be published.

    1. English language needs significant revision. The paper is hardly understandable at times.

    2. It is difficult to distinguish between language and terminology problems, but it seems like the authors have to re-read some basic references (e.g., Tribol. Lett. 17 (2004) 569-573). First of all, fretting is a type of motion, and it is incorrect to say “anti-fretting property” (title) or “anti-fretting mechanism” (abstract). Next, fretting is not “a branch of tribology”, and it cannot “be defined as a form of friction”. The statements like “abrasions caused by fretting wear are hard to be found during the assembly of components” or “a massive debris accumulation at the side of the fretting regime” are puzzling.

    3. The authors also seem to be confused about different types of wear (adhesive, abrasive and fretting). They are recommended to take a look at wear classification schemes (e.g., Friction 1 (4), 333-340).

    4. EDS maps shown in Fig. 6 do not support the conclusions made.

    5. Figure 7 is not clear, failing to explain the difference between 3 studied cases.

    6. In general, the observations made have to be explained. Currently, it is not clear why the presented results are obtained, and the explanations are cursory or absent.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2019/11/12

    Please add information about the relative humidity.
    Why the normal load was so low?
    Please add details about the measurement of the surface topography. Please also describe the surface profiler.
    Figure 4a – please discuss different shapes of the presented curves.
    How have you measured the average friction coefficient?
    Please describe the method of volumetric wear assessment.
    Please add the results of the measurement of wear of balls.

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