Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dears Authors,

Generally, the work is good and the results are interesting. Research methods selected by the author are adequate to the subject of the paper, but the paper requires some improvements which are proposed below:
How can the proposed ideal model be used in real TBC systems?
How the morphology was controlled and what method was used to examine the morphology?
Some positions in references require reformatting, do not conform with the specifications of Coatings.
The subject matter includes a lot of newer bibliographies, please verify and supplement.

Regards

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: How can the proposed ideal model be used in real TBC systems?

Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your kind and helpful suggestions on our manuscript! The results obtained from the simulation study of the ideal model can be served as a guide or reference to understand the erosion failure of the real TBC system. The influence of defects (pores, voids and cracks) on the erosion failure behavior of the TBCs will be investigated in the subsequent work. Thank you very much for your suggestions again!

Point 2:How the morphology was controlled and what method was used to examine the morphology?

Response 2: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your kind and helpful suggestions on our manuscript! There are various types of foreign particles under the actual service conditions of blades of aero-engine, and the contact forms can be classified into three types, i.e. point, line and surface contact. The impact erosion behavior of the three contact forms has been simulated in the current work, and the corresponding interesting results have been obtained. Some presentation has been added in the revised manuscript.Thank you very much for your suggestions again!

Point 3:Some positions in references require reformatting, do not conform with the specifications of Coatings.

Response 3: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your kind and helpful suggestions on our manuscript! The format of references has been standardized in the revised manuscript, and all the references have been checked. Thank you very much for your suggestions!

 Point 4:The subject matter includes a lot of newer bibliographies, please verify and supplement.

Response 4: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your kind and helpful suggestions on our manuscript! The newer bibliographies about the subject matter have been added in the revised manuscript. Thank you very much for your suggestions!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents a study on TBC through the finite element method. The manuscript is well structured but there are a series of improvements needed prior to the acceptance of the manuscript. 

The manuscript must be thoroughly proofread by a native English speaker. There are a series of grammatical and syntactical errors present. 

 

The results of the model need to be compared to experimental results in order to validate the results of the model.

A closer magnification of the mesh, as presented in figure 3 would be beneficial.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: The manuscript must be thoroughly proofread by a native English speaker. There are a series of grammatical and syntactical errors present.

Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your kind and helpful suggestions on the English usage of our manuscript! Some grammatical and syntactical errors have been corrected in revised manuscript. In addition, we have tried our best to revise the whole manuscript carefully and tried to avoid any grammar or syntax error. We have also asked several colleagues who are skilled authors of English language papers to check the English. And the author has also asked a native speaker to revise the manuscript. At last, the whole manuscript has been checked and verified for several times by the authors, we believe that the English of the current version is now acceptable for publication. Thank you very much for your suggestions!

Point 2:The results of the model need to be compared to experimental results in order to validate the results of the model.

Response 2: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your kind and helpful suggestions on our manuscript! We also plan to supplement the experimental data, but we were asked to self-quarantine due to the seriousness of the（Corona Virus Disease 2019，COVID-19）in  Shanghai now. Therefore, we are unable to complete the experiment now. Thank you very much for your suggestions!

Point 3:A closer magnification of the mesh, as presented in figure 3 would be beneficial.

Response 3: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your kind and helpful suggestions on our manuscript! A closed magnification of the mesh as presented in figure 3 has been provided in the revised manuscript. Thank you very much for your suggestions!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is somehow interesting and innovative. I have some minor comments only, mentioned below,

*It is suggested to avoid typing abbreviations in the title. The words CMAS and TBC shall be expanded.

*The paper’s texts contain some grammatical errors. As examples;

“Schematic illustration of the coating failure caused by impact erosion”

“the effects of the impact velocity and angle on the residual stress of TBCs have also been investigated systematically in this work.”

“particles, in which the selection of controllable parameters including impact velocity and angle is very important.”

And many others…

The whole paper should be re-checked.

*The diameter sign is not correct.

“Φ25 mm”…

*The density unit in Table 1 should be corrected.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: It is suggested to avoid typing abbreviations in the title. The words CMAS and TBC shall be expanded.

Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your kind and helpful suggestions on our manuscript! The abbreviations for the title have been expanded in revised manuscript. Thank you very much for your suggestions!

Point 2:The paper’s texts contain some grammatical errors. As examples;

“Schematic illustration of the coating failure caused by impact erosion”

“the effects of the impact velocity and angle on the residual stress of TBCs have also been investigated systematically in this work.”

“particles, in which the selection of controllable parameters including impact velocity and angle is very important.”

And many others…

The whole paper should be re-checked.

*The diameter sign is not correct.

“Φ25 mm”…

*The density unit in Table 1 should be corrected.

Response 2: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your kind and helpful suggestions on the English usage of our manuscript! The corresponding grammatical and syntactical errors have been corrected in revised manuscript. In addition, we have tried our best to revise the whole manuscript carefully and tried to avoid any grammar or syntax error. We have also asked several colleagues who are skilled authors of English language papers to check the English. And the author has also asked a native speaker to revise the manuscript. At last, the whole manuscript has been checked and verified for several times by the authors, we believe that the English of the current version is now acceptable for publication. Thank you very much for your suggestions!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

please address all comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

Point 1: Please modify typo error.

Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your kind and helpful suggestions on the English usage of our manuscript! The typo error has been modified. In addition, we have tried our best to revise the whole manuscript carefully and tried to avoid any grammar or syntax error. We have also asked several colleagues who are skilled authors of English language papers to check the English. And the author has also asked a native speaker to revise the manuscript. At last, the whole manuscript has been checked and verified for several times by the authors, we believe that the English of the current version is now acceptable for publication. Thank you very much for your suggestions!

Point 2:Please apply all indexes properly. subscript or superscript.

Response 2: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your kind and helpful suggestions on our manuscript! The format of all indexes, superscripts and subscripts has been standardized in the revised manuscript. Thank you very much for your suggestions!

Point 3:The statements " There are many factors leading to the failure of TBCs, which generally can be categorized into two types: the material properties and the environmental impacts." "The material properties are as about the layered structure and, pores and microcracks at the interior and surface of the coatings. Environmental impacts are mainly about the damages of the TBCs by the operating conditions, including thermal shock, high-temperature oxidation and particle erosion. "Should be referenced.

Response 3: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your kind and helpful suggestions on our manuscript! Now this statement has been referenced in the revised manuscript. Thank you very much for your suggestions!

Point 4:Please mention why this kind of mesh was used.

Response 4:Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your kind and helpful suggestions! The quadrilateral mesh uses a bilinear interpolation function with quadratic terms, so it is more accurate than the triangular mesh. Moreover, quadrilateral meshes can additionally add cell algorithms, which can improve the performance, accuracy and computational efficiency of the cells. Thank you very much for your suggestions!

Point 5:Equation 1 and Equation 2 Should be referenced.

Response 5: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your kind and helpful suggestions! The Equation 1 and Equation 2 have been referenced in the revised manuscript. Thank you very much for your suggestions!

Point 6:This part is belonged to your results at first, no other researchers. please modify it.

Response 6: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your kind and helpful suggestions on our manuscript! This section has been revised in the revised manuscript according to your suggestion. Thank you very much for your suggestions! 

Point 7: Do you confirm that the result of modeling supports the experimental results?

Response 7: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your kind and helpful suggestions on our manuscript! The results obtained from the simulation study of the ideal model can be served as a guide or reference to understand the erosion failure of the real TBC system. The influence of defects (pores, voids and cracks) on the erosion failure behavior of the TBCs will be investigated in the subsequent work. Thank you very much for your suggestions again!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx