Solid Particle Erosion Behaviour and Protective Coatings for Gas Turbine Compressor Blades—A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, the review paper is acceptable, because represents an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field.

This paper presents the results of investigations that are crucial for selecting the appropriate countermeasures and maintaining the Gas turbines performance. The review paper provides a comprehensive survey of the most studies on solid particles erosion effects and surface protective coatings.

The ductile and brittle SPE mechanism is also well presented, in line with in-depth focus on the parameters associated with the SPE. Finally, the existing theoretical models are introduced and extensively discussed in spite of the fact that many key elements of the erosion process have, proved too complex to model successfully, while obtaining direct, accurate measurements remains challenging..

In general, however, the article is interesting from a cognitive point of view.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the respected reviewer for his kind words and remarks, and for taken the time to review our manuscript.

Thank you very much.

The Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The review is focused on Solid Particle Erosion Behaviour and Protective Coatings for Gas Turbine Compressor Blades. It is well organized and presented. I suggest to accept the work after a revision according to the following comments.

The authors do not mention about the materials usually employed to realize the Gas Turbine Compressor Blades. They should mention the kind of usually employed steel and for which specific application/environment. This is crucial for a review.

The authors claim that the coatings play a role in inhibiting the erosion of the materials. However, the section devoted to coatings lacks a few information about the kind of coatings. I think that it is not enough mentioning that they can be metallic or ceramic. They should mention the kind of metallic and ceramic materials employed as well as advantages and disadvantages of both.

Please check the word “third” in Fig. 9.

Author Response

The authors would like to start by thanking the respected reviewer for taken the time to review our manuscript and for his respected remarks and comments. Kindly note that the authors agree with all the comments provided by the respected reviewer and were taken into account in the revised version of the manuscript as following:

Reviewer comment: The authors do not mention about the materials usually employed to realize the Gas Turbine Compressor Blades. They should mention the kind of usually employed steel and for which specific application/environment. This is crucial for a review.

Authors reply: This is now included as advised by the respected reviewer in the manuscript. Please see Page 2, Lines 54 to 55, and Table 1 in Page 2 to 3.

Reviewer comment: The authors claim that the coatings play a role in inhibiting the erosion of the materials. However, the section devoted to coatings lacks a few information about the kind of coatings. I think that it is not enough mentioning that they can be metallic or ceramic. They should mention the kind of metallic and ceramic materials employed as well as advantages and disadvantages of both.

Authors reply: We totally agree and thank the respected reviewer for this comment. Kindly note that we have taken this into account and have included examples of these materials and their advantages and disadvantages as advised. Please see Page 29, Lines 19 to 20, and Table 5 in Page 30.

Reviewer comment: Please check the word “third” in Fig. 9.

Authors reply: We apologies for such mistake and thank the respected reviewer for pointing this out to us. Kindly note that we have corrected the word. Please check Figure 9, Page 11.

Finally, the authors would like to thank the respected reviewer again for accepting to review our manuscript and for sharing his time.

Thank you very much.

The Authors