AI-Based Degradation Index from the Microstructure Image and Life Prediction Models Based on Bayesian Inference

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a novel and solid research work and however, one of the weakness of the current version is the lack of detail and the lack of clarity on what exactly has been adopted from existing research, while claiming a new method proposed and developed. This needs to be addressed.

Furthermore, the following updating/revising are required before recommending for publication:

1. The literature review has reported what have been done recently in this field, however, short or weak in evaluating them critically; 

2. Also, the literature or background section does not pay adequately attention to the most relevant subtopics such as property degeneration index; dimension reduction method;

3. There is a lack of overview of the new methodology, how precisely it differs from or similar to the existing method, and the justification/rational;  

4. some of the criticisms on the existing methods may not be accurate, please revise them;

5. The abstract is vague on the details what have been developed and done;

6. Better clarity, for example, what it is and what is its advantage should be reported separately, at different section of the paper for different purpose?

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “sustainability-2214578” dealing with Nickel-based Superalloys has been reviewed. The paper has been nicely written but needs significant improvement. Please follow my comments.

 

 

1.     Add some quantitative results to the abstract.

2.     What is the main research question for this research work?

3.     Please check if you need to get permission for Figure 1. Doosan Enerbility’s H Class 60Hz gas turbine model (DGT6-300H S1).

4.     What is the future direction of this work?

5.     Nickel has many usage in manufacturing method which can be highlighted in your paper. Please read the following article and add to the introduction to show the experimental application of nickel in sandwich structure printing “Sandwich structure printing of Ti-Ni-Ti by directed energy deposition”.

6.     Figure 9 and the caption are not aligned. “Figure 9. Types of geometric features as a degradation index.” Please fix it.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper Titled “Degradation Quantification Method and Degradation and Creep Life Prediction Method for Nickel-based Superalloys Based on Bayesian Inference”, presents a good quality of data analysis, however, it needs to be improved in the following aspects after the major revision. 

11.    How are the categories defined in Figure 3?

2.            For the introduction part, in the last paragraph, you should put a paragraph that concisely summarizes your work. 

3.            In 2.1.1, you claim work distance is 9.2mm, is that true for all the SEM graphs in your work? Because Figure 5 and Figure 6 have 9.4mm and 6.2mm WD.

4.            There are two “2.1” in your paper.

5.            Although Figure 7 comprehensively represents your approach, it is too much to follow the logic. You need to improve the aesthetic of the flow chart.

6.            There is no Figure 9.

7.            How was your model dealt with the outlier in your data set?

8.            I didn't see any comparison between the model and real data, is that true? If not, what is the performance of the model compared with the experimental data?

9.            You need to concise the 1. Introduction - 1.1 Background section, it is too lengthy.

10.          Are there any validation tests in your work?

11.          it is better to use a table in FIgure 11b

12.          The quality of Figure 16 needs to be improved. 

 

13.  The structure of 4. Discussion needs to be re-written and be more logical 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is ready to go. 

Author Response

It is noted that we revised minor revision with improving the quality of English. English language and style was checked and revised with support from the translation company as attached letter.

Reviewer 3 Report

the paper can be accepted in the present form

Author Response

It is noted that we revised minor revision with improving the quality of English. English language and style was checked and revised with support from the translation company as attached letter.