Intelligent Life Prediction of Thermal Barrier Coating for Aero Engine Blades
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic addressed Intelligent life prediction of thermal barrier coating for aeroengine blades is potentially interesting, however, there are some issues that should be addressed by the authors:
The Introduction" sections can be made much more impressive by highlighting your contributions. The contribution of the study should be explained simply and clearly.
The authors should further enlarge the Introduction with current work about machine learning and neural network algorithms to improve the research background, for example, Towards Secured Online Monitoring for Digitalized GIS Against Cyber-Attacks Based on IoT and Machine Learning; Effective Nonlinear Model Predictive Control Scheme Tuned by Improved NN for Robotic Manipulators.
If possible, present the confusing matrix of the proposed method.
The conclusion section should be rearranged. According to the topic of the paper, the authors may propose some interesting problems as future work in the conclusion.
This study may be proposed for publication if it is addressed in the specified problems.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Despite the significant amount of work done, the authors need to significantly modify the submitted manuscript.
1) On page 6, the two figures are numbered the same as Fig. 4.
2) Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. I propose to combine its. It will be immediately clear the change in the appearance of the coatings before and after the thermal vibration test.
3) Fig. 6 and Fig. 8 makes sense to combine or Fig. 6 can be removed, since these two figures duplicate each other.
4) Table 4. It is indicated that 6000 images were taken for analysis. With what step (in microns) were the photographs taken and what area of the sample did they cover? Has the entire test sample been analyzed? Why was 6000 images chosen? This needs to be added to the text of the manuscript.
5) The "Discussion" section is very small. It is necessary to add the results of the image analysis. What is the lifetime of these coatings, depending on the time of the thermal vibration test carried out according to the calculation results? Compare the calculated data with literature experimental or someone else's calculations.
6) In accordance with the above, amend and finalize the annotation of the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
After a review of your article I have some remarks of various matters:
- Lines 76-78: to support this statement it would be good to add some references.
- Table 1: Please check the paragraph above it because it is not fully clear. Please name the layers you counted here according to the inputs in table 1 to clarify. For example, in Line 100: the first five layers are convolutional layers – they are not the first five in Table 1.
- Table 3: please explain the SYZ abbreviation.
- Table 4 is unnecessary because all data are the same for each Number of heating cycles. Only one sentence explaining that would be enough.
- Chapter 4. Discussion: It is too laconic. It looks like the Summary rather than the real discussion. In fact, a huge part of chapter 3 Results should be moved into Discussion, or these two chapters can be merged.
Please address them. After that I do not need to review the article again and I recommend ir to further processing.
Sincerely,
Reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Very interesting article. Thank you for the opportunity to prepare a review. While I have no major comments on the proposed model, I would like to point out that the analyzed shell is not SYZ, but YSZ (Yttria-Stabilized Zirconia). The article only presents another model - I believe that the Discussion chapter is completely redundant, because no discussion and comparison with other models is included in it. And the presented conclusions are not only conclusions but a summary.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors handled all comments. Thank you
Author Response
Thank you very much for your positive comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
1) It is imperative to decipher the abbreviation TGO.
2) Finally, it is necessary to add data on images analysis and coating lifetime in "Conclusion".
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
