Experimental Study and Mechanism Analysis of the Influence of Micro-Dimple Geometry on the Adhesion Strength of Textured Coatings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authority

I checked the study titled “Experimental Study and Mechanism Analysis of the Adhesion Strength of AlCrN Coating on the Micro Dimple's Topography of the Mold Surface” in detail. It may be useful in terms of content, but I think it has some shortcomings. The following points may be reviewed.

- The pictures you show in Fig.2 are not fully understandable. The representative analysis direction in the middle should be consistent with the analysis result on the right. Your hole numbers or hole depths are inconsistent as it is. Additionally, it may be more useful if it is clear what the axes are.

- Please indicate where the parameters in table.4-6 are taken from for the AlCrN you use in your coatings, whether it is a reference or your own analysis.

- Can't Fig.3 and Fig.4 be combined? It can be explained under two different headings on the same picture. Also, why 1471 N in the Indentation test? How did you determine this?

- In wear tests, porosity is desired up to certain levels. Significant pores are observed in the SEM images of the surfaces you coated. Can we know to what extent this is or to what extent it affects the tests performed? What is your comment about the damage behavior of the resulting cracks? You should examine this according to the literature.

- The evaluation of the obtained results must be made by comparing them with the literature. It is very simple in this way.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I observed some minor errors, but they can be reviewed again.

Author Response

请参阅附件

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done a good job. The topic of the paper is interesting and valuable. Abstract contains the most important information, it also contains basic information about the results. The paper details the properties of the DC53 steel used, the Scratch test and the Indentation test are presented in detail. It is valuable that the paper includes SEM images (fig. 5). The results of the tests are analyzed, a discussion and a summary are presented. The paper is prepared carefully. I believe that with minor editorial corrections it can be published.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf