Effect of Hot Spot within Combustion Liner on YSZ Crack Propagation Mode
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is written and presented well by the authors. However, modifications are required before accepting the manuscript for publication, which are as follows?
1. The introduction is too narrow. The authors are advised to elaborate on this section with suitable references.
2. Any particular reason to treat the samples at the mentioned cycles? Any reference to this (lines 110-113)?
3. The authors did not conduct the effect of the grid on the Abaqus results. Clarification needed.
4. In Fig. 3, after about 3 hrs, the deviations are quite large between the experimental and simulation results at 1100 degrees. Clarification needed.
5. In Fig. 5, the temperature distribution is symmetric and the changes at 100 and 200 degrees are sharp. Clarification needed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
Your comments and suggestions are valuable for this paper, and I have responded to each revision and revised the paper as follows:
1. Q:The introduction is too narrow. The authors are advised to elaborate on this section with suitable references.
A:add a background of thermal barrier coating in the introduction.
2.Q:Any particular reason to treat the samples at the mentioned cycles? Any reference to this (lines 110-113)?
A:TBCs have significant sintering behavior above 1000°C, which can be found in the literature [Chi, W.; Sampath, S.; Wang, H. Microstructure-thermal conductivity relationships for plasma- sprayed yttria-stabilized zirconia coatings. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2008, 91, 2636-2645]. And according to the wall temperature of Fig. 4, it can be seen that the super 1100°C region can account for up to 37% and contains the ablation region. To understand the morphology and property transformation process under the sintering behavior of YSZ, the TBCs specimens were subjected to 1100°C heat treatment in batches of 10h, 20h, 50h, 100h, and 150h using a high-temperature furnace.
3.Q:The authors did not conduct the effect of the grid on the Abaqus results. Clarification needed.
A:In the FEM cell, set TC layer as triangular mesh with approximate mesh size 0.003mm to improve the calculation accuracy, because triangular mesh have constant strain across the element. and mesh refinement for pore boundaries, which are of more concern to us, when the mesh is dense enough, the crack extension results are not affected by the mesh size , which can be found in the literature [ Wang, L.-S.; Song, J.-B.; Dong, H.; Yao, J.-T. Sintering-Induced Failure Mechanism of Thermal Barrier Coatings and Sintering-Resistant Design. Coatings 2022, 12, 1083].
4.Q:In Fig. 3, after about 3 hrs, the deviations are quite large between the experimental and simulation results at 1100 degrees. Clarification needed.
A:Simulation value is higher than the experimental value, because FEM border conditions are simplified to fix the left border, the right border adds additional load, and the 1μm or lower gap is ignored due to the calculation limitation. However the difference between the modulus E obtained by simulation and experimental methods is less than 6% of the measured value, demonstrating that the image-based FEM captures the main microstructural features contributing to the variation of the YSZ elastic modulus, and that ignoring finer cracks and pores is acceptable.
5.Q: In Fig. 5, the temperature distribution is symmetric and the changes at 100 and 200 degrees are sharp. Clarification needed.
A:This is the FEM surface loading temperature, not the surface temperature value, which has been used in the literature [Huang, J.; Sun, W.; Huang, R.; Ma, W. Cracking Behavior of Atmospheric Plasma-Sprayed 8YSZ Thermal Barrier Coatings during Thermal Shock Test. Coatings 2023, 13, 243. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings13020243].
Looking forward to receiving your review letter.
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see attached file,
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Please see attached file,
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
Your comments and suggestions are valuable for this paper, and I have responded to each revision and revised the paper as coatings-2391572.docx.
Looking forward to receiving your review letter
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is devoted to a very imporant problem of both experimental and theoretical description of coatings cracking under temperature gradient.
The authors presented rather comprehensive description of this problem with good mathematical analysis.
The paper can be published as is.
Two remarks:
a) in line 155 there is a strange word "conFig.d"
b) in Fig 12 they write "stree" instead of "stress"
The English is rather adequate.
Two remarks:
a) in line 155 there is a strange word "conFig.d"
b) in Fig 12 they write "stree" instead of "stress"
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
Your comments and suggestions are valuable for this paper, and I have responded to each revision and revised the paper as follows:
a) Q:in line 155 there is a strange word "conFig.d"
A:The word is "configured"
b) Q:in Fig 12 they write "stree" instead of "stress"
A:Words have been modified
Looking forward to receiving your review letter.
Reviewer 4 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
The English language needs to be polished, minor grammatical and syntax errors exist. Furthermore, there are some mistakes in the punctuation of the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
Your comments and suggestions are valuable for this paper, and I have responded to each revision and revised the paper as coatings-2391572.docx.
Looking forward to receiving your review letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is unsound and is not suggested for publication.
The paper is unsound and is not suggested for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
I received your second round review report, thank you for your comments and opinions on our articles, which are very detailed and comprehensive. You have provided important guidance to our work and we will continue to work on more in-depth research.
Thank you again for reviewing our article in your busy schedule!
Reviewer 4 Report
1) Finite element model (FEM), please ensure that FEM is utilized in the rest of the manuscript-This comment is partially addressed
2) The reviewer suggests to the authors to write either modulus of elasticity or elastic modulus throughout the manuscript (not both).
3) Equation 6, L223 is referenced in a different style than the other equations in the text. Please improve.
No comments
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
I received your second round review report and have revised the specific questions to:
1) Finite element model (FEM), please ensure that FEM is utilized in the rest of the manuscript-This comment is partially addressed
A: Full text model has been replaced with "FEM".
2) The reviewer suggests to the authors to write either modulus of elasticity or elastic modulus throughout the manuscript (not both).
A: The full text "modulus of elasticity" has been replaced with "elastic modulus".
3) Equation 6, L223 is referenced in a different style than the other equations in the text. Please improve.
A: Add a citation reference in L223 [LI Z Y, BAO R, ZHANG J Y, et al. Effect of different heat transfer coefficients on the performance of thermal barrier coatings under thermo-mechanical couple process[J]. Journal of Aerospace Power, 2008, 23(5): 5946-5951].
Looking forward to receiving your review letter.
