Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review report: Evaluation of solid particle erosion of EB-PVD TBCs under thermal cycling conditions based on a stochastic approach

1.       And key information in abstract section.

2.       Discuss the Novelty and clear application of the work.

3.       Introduction section is written in very poor manner and add key published work and try to make a bridge between current and previous published work: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12540-020-00705-w; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.01.131; https://doi.org/10.1007/s41779-018-0258-4.

4.       Add the image of the experimental setup.

5.       Provide the reference for each equation.

6.       The results are presented like a technical report. Add technical discussion.

7.       Erosion rate increases first with increase in impact angle and then decreases, why?

8.       How was the holding time set?

 

9.       Shorten the length of the conclusion section and add only key bullet points. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper deals with the ¨Evaluation of solid particle erosion of EB-PVD TBCs under thermal cycling conditions based on a stochastic approach¨. The manuscript topic is interesting, but a couple of issues can be detected in this article that make the paper confusing and hard to understand.

1-      There are a lot of typos and grammatical errors.

2-      The abstract is too short, and it is descriptive. What were the procedure and main outputs? The main output should be added to the Abstract, and unnecessary general information should be removed. 

3-      The introduction needs to be improved. The benefits and drawbacks of this manuscript are not clear. The authors aimed for what they wanted to present, but the problem they wanted to solve.

4-      Many pieces of literature are available that are related to this research and give authors more information, and they can be used in the discussion section.

5-      Please remove and avoid bunch citing like [1]-[8] or [9]-[14] or [15]-[19]. Suppose the reference content is important to detail them and explain the outputs.

6-      Why is Fig. 4 cut?

7-      Discussion needs to be improved

 

8-      Did you validate the results with any experimental data? (your own literature)

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accepted.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors responded to the comments properly.