Enhanced Erosion Resistance of Cr3C2-TiC-NiCrCoMo Coatings: Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Erosion Mechanisms
, Xiaoxia Qi 3, Laixiao Lu 1, Yanhua Zhao 1, Ziwu Liu 4 and Weiyun Meng 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The present work entitled “Enhanced Erosion Resistance of Cr3C2-TiC-NiCrCoMo Coatings: Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Erosion Mechanisms” is devoted to the study of erosion resistance of Cr3C2-TiC-NiCrCoMo coatings.
This topic is interesting and worthy to be investigated.
The methodological part is described in detail. The references are appropriate.
But the article has a number of comments.
Title, Abstract and further in the text of the article: Subscripts are required in formulas of chemical compounds. (Cr3C2, Al2O3 etc.)
Abstract: The abstract contains unexplained abbreviations. (NCT1, NCC)
The text of work does not contain an explanation of the NC, NCC abbreviation.
Line 144: The manufacturer of the powders must be specified. The particle sizes of the original powders must be specified.
Line 149: The chemical composition of 310S substrate must be specified.
Lines 415-416, Figure 6: The captions on the figures do not correspond to the explanations in the text (NC (test), NC (simulation) vs NC(E), NC(MC)).
Lines 428-430: It is unclear what coating is being discussed in the sentence. And accordingly, it is unclear what is being compared in the next sentence.
Lines 465-475: When assessing the tensile bond strengths, it was not noted how the destruction occurred: along the border with the substrate or the coating itself was destroyed.
Figure 13: There is no description of figures (a), (b)...
Conclusion: It is unacceptable to use abbreviations in conclusions without explaining their meaning.
The work is interesting and well written, but requires minor corrections.
Author Response
Comment 1:Title, Abstract and further in the text of the article: Subscripts are required in formulas of chemical compounds. (Cr3C2, Al2O3 etc.)
Response 1:Thanks for the comment. The superscripts and subscripts of the relevant chemical formulas have all been modified.
Comment 2: Abstract: The abstract contains unexplained abbreviations. (NCT1, NCC)
Response 2: Abbreviations including NCT1 and NCC have been explained and added in abstract.
Comment 3: The text of work does not contain an explanation of the NC, NCC abbreviation.
Response 3: The NC, NCC abbreviation has been modified and added in the manuscript.
Comment 4: Line 144: The manufacturer of the powders must be specified. The particle sizes of the original powders must be specified.
Response 4: The manufacturer of the powders and particle sizes has been specified in manuscript (Line 144 and 145).
Comment 5: Line 149: The chemical composition of 310S substrate must be specified.
Response 5: The chemical composition of 310S substrate has been specified in Line 151.
Comment 6: Lines 415-416, Figure 6: The captions on the figures do not correspond to the explanations in the text (NC (test), NC (simulation) vs NC(E), NC(MC)).
Response 6: The explanation of the figures has been revised.
Comment 7: Lines 428-430: It is unclear what coating is being discussed in the sentence. And accordingly, it is unclear what is being compared in the next sentence.
Response 7: The description of the porosity has been revised and it has been specified which coating's porosity it refers to.
Comment 8: Lines 465-475: When assessing the tensile bond strengths, it was not noted how the destruction occurred: along the border with the substrate or the coating itself was destroyed.
Response 8: The explanation of the broken part of the crack has been added in Line 470-472.
Comment 9: Figure 13: There is no description of figures (a), (b)...
Response 9: The description of Figure 13 is shown in Line 544-571.
Comment 9: Conclusion: It is unacceptable to use abbreviations in conclusions without explaining their meaning.
Response 9: The relevant abbreviations are explained in the abstract and citations.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article concerned research on the increased erosion resistance of Cr3C2-TiC-NiCrCoMo coatings. The authors preformed experimental and numerical investigation of erosion mechanisms. They compared 4 different coatings. The article has a typical structure. I have summarized detailed comments on the article below.
- Abstract: In my opinion, it worth to add the abbreviations "NCC" and "NC" to the Abstract.
- How were the surfaces prepared before applying the coatings?
- In the article, the word "figure" is written in different fonts (e.g. 161, 188).
- Please, add the missing subscripts (e.g. 165, 278, 283, 513).
- Please, change numbering of the subsections (lines 217, 240, 286, 350 and 402).
- Line 405: Why do you refer to item 39? Iain Finnie is not a co-author of this publication.
- Fig. 6: Are the test results from previously published studies?
- Fig. 7: Please, mark the example pores and cracks you write about in lines 428-431.
- Fig. 9: Please, correct unit of the Depth (μm).
- Lines 465-475: What type of machine did you use for these tests?
- Fig. 13: Please, add a more detailed description of what is shown in images in the figure caption.
- Please, format the References.
Author Response
Comment 1: Abstract: In my opinion, it worth to add the abbreviations "NCC" and "NC" to the Abstract.
Response 1: The abbreviations of NCC and NC have been added in the Abstract.
Comment 2: How were the surfaces prepared before applying the coatings?
Response 2: The substrate surface is sandblasted before spraying.
Comment 3: In the article, the word "figure" is written in different fonts (e.g. 161, 188).
Response 3: The fonts of figure have been revised.
Comment 4: Please, add the missing subscripts (e.g. 165, 278, 283, 513).
Response 4: The subscripts of chemical formula has been added in manuscript.
Comment 5: Please, change numbering of the subsections (lines 217, 240, 286, 350 and 402).
Response 5: The number of the subsections has been revised.
Comment 6: Line 405: Why do you refer to item 39? Iain Finnie is not a co-author of this publication.
Response 6: The relevant expressions have been revised.
Comment 7: Fig. 6: Are the test results from previously published studies?
Response 7: The data in Figure 6 has not been published in any journal.
Comment 8: Fig. 7: Please, mark the example pores and cracks you write about in lines 428-431.
Response 8: The relevant expressions and figure 7 have been revised.
Comment 9: Fig. 9: Please, correct unit of the Depth (μm).
Response 9: The units of depth have been corrected
Comment 10: Lines 465-475: What type of machine did you use for these tests?
Response 10: The hardness of the coating at different depths was tested by Vickers hardness tester (HVT-1).
Comment 11: Fig. 13: Please, add a more detailed description of what is shown in images in the figure caption.
Response 11: Relevant statements have been revised and supplemented.
Comment 12: Please, format the References.
Response 12: References have been formatted
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
