Saxonian Institute of Surface Mechanics

Endlessly Touchable - Structural Solutions for the Next Generation of Tribo-Protective Coatings

August 2012:

After being invited to provide a „full length paper“ to WOM 2013 (International Conference on Wear of Materials) we submitted a new wear-simulation approach which in principle could be illustrated by the following flow chart:

Truely physical characterization and optimization of tribo-protective coatings by means of generic tribo-parameters

January 2013:

Unfortunately, the paper got forgotten and was only put in a hurried “proper review process” when the author wanted to know why he still hasn’t heard from the WOM board.

In e-mail from WOM on 24th January:

“Apologies for the confusion caused. I checked the whole history and now I have asked the concerned person to assign it to the Editor for reviewing.”

Very few hours later ...

... we received the decision of the “review process”, which read:

Reviewers' comments:

Comments from the Subject Matter Editor for Wear Modeling:

I am rejecting your paper because it is not ready for the usual Wear of Materials audiences.

It is on a fascinating topic since we have taken greater interest in wear modeling of late. Thank you for considering us as an appropriate forum for your views.

What can one say to such an exemplary review? WOM really does set the standard here.

Comments from the general editor:

Any new theory or approach to wear science should be generally accompanied by a series of physical experiments that validate its predictive ability. In this case, the reviewer felt that more substantial verification is required for acceptance. Furthermore, the author has not established the relationship between quasi-static characteristics, like hardness, and highly dynamic characteristics like wear. Where is the role of debris particles? How are strain rate effects taken into account? How is the wear of the system (both the softer and harder of the materials) accounted for. In addition, from an editorial point of view, there were too many figures with tiny, almost unreadable labels. There are also quite a few spelling and grammar errors in this paper. That also led to not recommending acceptance.

It is perfectly acceptable, that the paper was not assumed to be ready for publication. However, the comments of the general editor are – in our humble opinion – probably of interest for a somewhat greater community and so we have decided to answer publicly the questions raised.

Any new theory or approach to wear science should be generally accompanied by a series of physical experiments that validate its predictive ability. In this case, the reviewer felt that more substantial verification is required for acceptance.

We are not commenting on this one but refer to some perhaps interesting contributions at this year’s ICMCTF:

There were also two such experimental contributions to WOM, but one was rejected and the other was withdrawn after the author learned about the treatment of my manuscript.

Furthermore, the author has not established the relationship between quasi-static characteristics, like hardness, and highly dynamic characteristics like wear.

It was perhaps not clearly enough explained in the paper that the process of wear is to be considered as a multi-physical multi body (asperity) ensemble of contact situation with each having its own geometry, load conditions (including tilting, normal, lateral, twisting loads plus frictional caused temperature fields) and – in complex cases with debris – also multiple time scales, meaning varies parts of the global wear contact are running in their own speed.
It is due to the similarity of the governing differential equations that having found the solution for the contact problem immediately gives us the solution for the temperature field or any other “diffusion-like” problem.

Beside that:
The connection between non-physical parameters (like hardness) toward wear was never the intention of the paper. In fact, there is no such connection – strictly speaking – and it is utter nonsense to seek such or even demand it in a serious scientific paper … and the author will not bother to explain it to duffers who are from the scientific age of the dinosaurs. Something not generic like hardness simply cannot – not generally – be extended or applied to a dynamic process like wear.
To put it metaphorically: Somebody who intends to model a driving car will probably not try to start with Newton’s third law but uses his second one instead.

Where is the role of debris particles?

They are just adding up to the complex jumble of contact situations mentioned above.

How are strain rate effects taken into account?

By applying either piecewise 3-parameter models or solving the nonlinear governing system of equations with time-stress- and strain-dependent material parameters.

How is the wear of the system (both the softer and harder of the materials) accounted for?

By decomposition limits extracted from the first principle approaches as described in the paper (bit short probably). These limits have then to be compared with the fields obtained in the multiple complex contact model. The concepts of “softer” or “harder” have nothing to do with this general approach.
Even though, in principle, we have now said what is of need, we explicitly point out, that wear cannot be connected by a simple kd-value (simple Archard’s law) to the deformation or stress field. Instead, in the most simple case, the wear is a tensor, coupling with wear-moduli to every stress component in a fully covariant manner:

Wearij=kijkl Stresskl

What does this formula mean? Learn more in the paper Endlessly Touchable – the Next Generation of Surface and Coating Optimization.

Do you have questions, hints, or are interested in such an surface optimization? Feel free to contact us Send inquiry.

shopping cart Cart: empty
© 2006-2017 Saxonian Institute of Surface Mechanics. Legal informations. Google+ Twitter