Design and Optimization of Interface Morphology of Thermal Barrier Coatings Based on Regulation of Residual Stress: A Finite Element Simulation Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Numerical simulation for the effect of interface morphology has been studied in this work. The manuscript is interesting but the following amendments must be carried out by the authors:

1 Change the title: interface texture is not a good candidate,  I recommend to change it with interface morphology .

2 Authors must describe why they choosed the mentioned thicknesses for top coat, bond coat and substrate as well. 

3 According to figures 1 and 7 it seems that the corrugated morphology  for interface has been analyzed and related simulations have been performed with this state. A detailed comments must be provided for this case. 

4 State of the art must be provided in the last paragraph of the introduction section. Also, recently published references must be used in this study.

5 Threre are not a future plan for the last part of fhe conclusions section. This should be completed as well.

6 Revise reference list according to the MDPI / Coatings journal standard.

7 There are numerous grammar mistakes in the manuscript.  A professional proofreading is mandatory for this manuscript.

8 The effect of structural porosity and oxide stringers must be considered for simulation. 

9 Types of TBC as top coat (e.g., YSZ8) and MCrAlY as bond coat (Ni, Co or Nicole based) must be considered in the FEM simulation study.

I am waiting to check the revised version of this work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review Report

Review report on the topic ‘Design and optimization of interface texture of thermal barrier coatings based on regulation of residual stress: A finite element simulation study’. Comments are listed below:

1.       Strengthen the abstract section. Add the key conclusion of the works in the last two lines of the abstract section.

2.       The clear application of the work should be discussed in the introduction section. From the introduction section application of the work is not clear.

3.       The novelty of the work should also be discussed in a separate paragraph.

4.       Try to make a bridge between current and previously published work and specify the gap area and objective of the work. Add the specific gap observed from the literature at the end of the introduction section. Add some recently published work on coating:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.01.131.

5.       Experimental section needs more clear discussion.

6.       Add the reference for temperature-dependent material properties. Also, add a reference for each equation.

7.       The major work on residual stresses study. However, no detailed discussion was observed about the residual stresses measurement, their significance and modelling:

8.       Add technical discussion about the results which is completely missing.

The manuscript is written well and can be accepted after following minor corrections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In the manuscript, Design and optimization of interface texture of thermal barrier

coatings based on the regulation of residual stress: A finite element simulation

the study presents an exciting application of laser-material interaction for understanding material properties. The article itself is within the journal's scope. Before being accepted for publication, the authors should consider the following

1)      English language should be more technical and formal rather than communication among buddies. Please, revise accordingly. There is clear room for improvements in the present version. (see the attachment)

2)      It is essential to have some idea of the experimental parameters used in this work:

a.      Type of laser ( nano  or Fenton)

b.      Laser energy or fluency

c.       Spot size

d.      Materials used

e.      Experimental protocol

3)      In the attached document, 28 comments should be addressed

4)      How can this research outcome be moved to the next level for practical applications?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept as is. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Accepted.