High-Temperature Interdiffusion of Tantalum and Niobium with SiC for Processing Hybrid Metal/CMC Components

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript, the authors study the High Temperature Interdiffusion of Tantalum and Niobium with SiC for Processing Hybrid Metal/CMC Components. This work sounds very interesting and meaningful, and the analysis is reasonably clear, but there are still a few concerns regarding this article, therefore, I suggest it for publication in this journal after the following major revisions:

1. The introduction part is suggested to be modified to highlight the importance, innovation and significance of this research.
2. What are the principles for selecting annealing temperature?
3. Some grammatical errors are found. A proof-reading of the article will enhance the quality of the paper.

     4.Figure (a) in Figure 3 and its labeling are fuzzy, so it is suggested to    make a new drawing.

5. The first occurrence of the abbreviation should be given the full name first.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

At first, we would like to thank you for your revision of our paper and for your pertinent comments. The changes are added in revision mode of the manuscript and you will find answers to your questions/comments just below.

1) I have changed both the abstract and introduction to enhance the innovation and significance of this research. I hope it suits you.

2) I have also add the comment in the text about the choice of the annealing temperatures. They were selected as a function of the highest reaction rate from the literature. Indeed, at 1050°C, we were supposed to have a thickness of dozens of µm after 1000h. Below this temperature, we would not been able to measure the composition as easily. 1500°C seems to be the upper limit for the sandwich cladding material. After 48h, we have seen that almost all of it has already reacted (especially in the case of the SiC/Nb system), so we have chosen it as the upper temperature.

3) We have checked the paper again for mistakes and have corrected a great amount as you can see in the paper with the track changes. I hope it is OK with you.

4) I have replotted Figure 3 by putting new labels on the diagrams extracted from literature. Normally, it is fine to read it without any problem.

5) During my review of the paper, I have paid a particular attention at given the full name before the first occurrence of the abbreviations

Best regards,
James Braun

Reviewer 2 Report

Article „High Temperature Interdiffusion of Tantalum and Niobium with SiC for Processing Hybrid Metal/CMC Components“.

 

In this Article, the Authors aim to conduct diffusion couple experiments at high temperatures (1050–1500 °C) to determine the diffusion paths and the reaction kinetic. Also, results are supported and compared with the literature. The whole article consists of 30 pages, 9 tables, 20 figures and 62 references and it looks like a semi-review type of article. This kind of article is not common but might be highly useful and interesting for readers. All the experiments conducted in this study are well planned, investigated deeply and well described. It is clear that the Authors made a lot of high quality experimental work and explained it well with a critical approach. However, some parts of this work might be improved:

• Abstract might be improved to better highlight the novelty of this research and results.
• In a Method part, it should be written models of used equipment and manufacturers.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

At first, we would like to thank you for your revision of our paper and for your pertinent comments. The changes are added in revision mode of the manuscript and you will find answers to your questions/comments just below.

1) I have changed both the abstract and introduction to enhance the innovation and significance of this research. I hope it suits you.

2) I have given the name of all the equipment as well as a link to detailed paper on the ion beam line that has been used for the measurements.

Best regards,
James Braun

Reviewer 3 Report

The article highlights peculiarities of high temperature interdiffusion of Tantalum and Niobium with SiC for processing hybrid metal/CMC components. Diffusion couple experiments were conducted at high temperatures (1050–1500 °C) to determine the diffusion paths and the reaction kinetics. A comparison with the results within sandwich cladding materials was conducted. The authors obtained interesting results. The work is well done, but a number of shortcomings need to be corrected to make the manuscript acceptable for publication.

(1) Line 175: Please check the spelling.

(2) Fig.3: The font size should be increased.

(3) Line 284: Please check the spelling.

(4) Line 595: Please check the spelling.

(5) Lines 601–603: Please check the spelling.

(6) The only 4 of 62 references are recent (2015–2022). More new references (2019-2022) are expected to add.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

At first, we would like to thank you for your revision of our paper and for your pertinent comments. The changes are added in revision mode of the manuscript and you will find answers to your questions/comments just below.

1) The mistake came from the fact that I did not use myself the Coatings journal template, so I think the mistake came during the paper edition.

2) I have replotted Figure 3 by putting new labels on the diagrams extracted from literature. Normally, it is fine to read it without any problem. 

3) I replaced “assed” by “assessed”.

4) I suppressed the “are” after was

5) I put an “s” at chemical potentials and change “form” to from

6) I think you are right. That is why I added 8 more recent references in the paper. ([3][7][8][13][14][15][16][57])

Moreover, I made more editing of the language in the document. I hope find the English better.

Best regards,
James Braun

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is very interesting, it only requires some minor corrections:

1. Figure 3 (a): The names of chemical compounds are practically unreadable in the drawing.

2. Line 197: The authors use the phrase "mirror polished", in the next research it is worth describing the surface with parameter values for the assessment of surface roughness.

3. Figure 8,9,10,11,15: Very interesting research results, while the font in the drawings is scaled, it is worth the font in the drawings to be the size of the font from the drawing caption, then you do not get the impression that the drawings have been artificially enlarged.

4. Figure 18: Why wasn't all data series approximated?

5. Figure 19: The markings of figures a, b etc. are definitely too large.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

At first, we would like to thank you for your revision of our paper and for your pertinent comments. The changes are added in revision mode of the manuscript and you will find answers to your questions/comments just below.

1) I replotted Figure 3 by putting new labels on the diagrams extracted from literature. Normally, it is fine to read it without any problem.

2) I added the size of the last diamond paste solution that we used for the sample polishing. Unfortunately, we did not measure the sample surface roughness but it is more a visual observation. You are right, we can conduct surface roughness measurements in further studies

3) In the whole paper, I have changed the markings and changed the font to be homogenous. I hope you find the changes OK.

4) I am sorry, I did not understand what you meant by “data series approximated”. I do not think we have approximate something or I do not see it clearly.

5) See comment 3. I have homogenized the (a), (b), labels in the whole paper to be uniform.  

Best regards,
James Braun

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The authors took into consideration the reviewers’ comments, they analyzed simulation result and answered to the questions. They addressed most of reviewers’ comments and took them into account by modifying the manuscript and the supplementary information. They nicely answered the questions by providing data, analysis and discussions. The manuscript has been changed and is now better and clearer. Overall I think this work can now be published in Coatings. This is why I recommend accepting this manuscript.