Next Article in Journal
Deposition Characteristics and Mechanical Properties of WC/Stellite-6 Composite Coatings Prepared by Supersonic Laser Deposition
Next Article in Special Issue
Research on Multi-Orbital Scanning Laser Bending Process of Polyvinyl Chloride Sheets
Previous Article in Journal
A Highly Hydrophobic Siloxane-Nanolignin Coating for the Protection of Wood
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Enhanced Erosion Resistance of Cr3C2-TiC-NiCrCoMo Coatings: Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Erosion Mechanisms

Coatings 2025, 15(3), 294; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings15030294
by Jiawei Wang 1, Linwen Wang 1, Haiyang Lu 2, Jiyu Du 1,*, Xiaoxia Qi 3, Laixiao Lu 1, Yanhua Zhao 1, Ziwu Liu 4 and Weiyun Meng 5
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Coatings 2025, 15(3), 294; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings15030294
Submission received: 15 January 2025 / Revised: 15 February 2025 / Accepted: 20 February 2025 / Published: 3 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Laser Technology of Thin Film and Coatings)

Round 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.

  1. Abstract: In my opinion, it worth to add the abbreviations "NCC" and "NC" to the Abstract.
  2. How were the surfaces prepared before applying the coatings?
  3. In the article, the word "figure" is written in different fonts (e.g. 161, 188).
  4. Please, add the missing subscripts (e.g. 165, 278, 283, 513).
  5. Please, change numbering of the subsections (lines 217, 240, 286, 350 and 402).
  6. Line 405: Why do you refer to item 39? Iain Finnie is not a co-author of this publication.
  7. Fig. 6: Are the test results from previously published studies?
  8. Fig. 7: Please, mark the example pores and cracks you write about in lines 428-431.
  9. Fig. 9: Please, correct unit of the Depth (μm).
  10. Lines 465-475: What type of machine did you use for these tests?
  11. Fig. 13: Please, add a more detailed description of what is shown in images in the figure caption.
  12. 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

Back to TopTop