A Novel Approach for Wind Turbine Blade Erosion Characterization: An Investigation Using Surface Gloss Measurement
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract should be given as more interesting. Express at least one of the main aspects and features of the paper.
The conclusion section of the abstract is weak.
Research gap studies are uncleared.
At the end of Introduction section, it would be better to add the paper's organization in different paragraph.
Manuscript must be presented in highlight the novelty, contribution, and applicability of the work.
Improve the conclusion.
Scope for future work is missing.
Please check the manuscript for wrong choice of words, grammatical errors and incoherent sentence structure.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
It is an interesting contribution, reporting on new approach for characterization of wind turbine blade erosion. I believe after some minor revision it can be accepted for publication.
- Please make one caption for Figs. 2, 4 and 6-11.
- The scale bares are not clear.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Topic of the manuscript is of significant importance and practical application. However, the manuscript requires improvements.
It is unclear, why is the manuscript related to 2021 instead of 2022.
As it is written in the introduction part, coated blades are used in real natural conditions in wind turbine farms. Also authors describe influence of rain and wind on the lifetime and erosion of those blades. However, there is no any description in "3. experimental approach and methodology" part connected with the rain affect. It is well-known, that rain droplets contain some pollutions. Due to those pollutions, surface of blades becomes dirt, i.e. gloss of the surface will be changed. But those changes will not be connected with the erosion. Was this factor taken into account when authors planned and carried out the experiment? Is it possible, that rain and wind pollution will not allow to apply proposed method?
Figures 9-11. In the 1st stage coatings have some porosity. Is it normal for such type of coatings. In my opinion, there should be added some brief descriptions to all the types of coatings in the initial state, to explain, what is typical for such coatings and what corresponds to the erosion.
List of references is very brief and short.
It is unclear, what was the main purpose of the manuscript. Discussion part contains only descriptional information. There is no any analysis of obtained results, or comparison with the results obtained by other researchers. Manuscript should be significantly improved before it may be published.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This work of novelty needs the following minor revisions:
1. The scale bars in Fig. 9-11 should be re-made to make them clearer.
2. More recent work published in 2019-2022 should be cited.
3. The method proposed here should be discussed more with other methods.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have made significant changes in the revised manuscript. Hence, accept the manuscript for publication in its present from.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors explained most part of the questions from previous review, however, they did not explain this within the text of the manuscript, but wrote the cover letter. All the questions from review (round 1) should be answered within the text of the manuscript. And 17 references are still not enough for the manuscript of 18 pages length.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
