Review on Mechanical Thermal Properties of Superalloys and Thermal Barrier Coating Used in Gas Turbines
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- The methodological level of the manuscript submitted for evaluation is very poor.
- My remarks concern basically the whole manuscript.
- The entire manuscript was developed without any logical order contrary to the adopted methodology for this type of manuscripts.
- The title of the manuscript is interesting.
- There are already serious shortcomings in the Abstract.
- The summary should briefly describe the content contained in the further part of the manuscript, and not express a personal opinion about potential recipients-readers.
- The manuscript, to a large extent, is devoted to methods of producing materials produced for the needs of gas turbines without the explicit purpose of presenting these methods.
- The described methods lack a detailed analysis of the obtained mechanical and technological properties of the materials produced by these methods.
- In very many places vague wording was used.
- (243-249) - a serious error of methodological methods because it is not possible to cast individual crystals, but only to analyze them, and materials cast by various methods crystallize by volume (for example: cast iron) and other directional to the geometric core of the product (for example: Al alloy).
- In many figures there is no explanation of the meaning of the symbols and units used in them.
- In many workplaces, there are figures without a clear link to the content of the work before and after the figures.
- Most of the figures included in the study are of poor quality and their descriptions are very poorly developed and illegible.
- In the formulas listed in the tables, there is no explanation of symbols and units.
- The editorial and substantive level of the manuscript is poor.
- This is not a scientific manuscript.
- The manuscript submitted for assessment cannot be a source of knowledge for students and industrial plants.
- Conclusions manuscript very sketchy and there are absolutely no conclusions drawn from the content of the entire manuscript.
Author Response
We are sincerely grateful to the reviewers for their kind and very helpful comments. We have revised the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions as follows:
Point 1: The methodological level of the manuscript submitted for evaluation is very poor.
Point 2: My remarks concern basically the whole manuscript.
Point 3: The entire manuscript was developed without any logical order contrary to the adopted methodology for this type of manuscripts.
Point 4: The title of the manuscript is interesting.
Point 5: There are already serious shortcomings in the Abstract.
Point 6: The summary should briefly describe the content contained in the further part of the manuscript, and not express a personal opinion about potential recipients-readers.
Point 7: The manuscript, to a large extent, is devoted to methods of producing materials produced for the needs of gas turbines without the explicit purpose of presenting these methods.
Point 8: The described methods lack a detailed analysis of the obtained mechanical and technological properties of the materials produced by these methods.
Point 9: In very many places vague wording was used.
Response 1-9: Overall, we have made significantly updated the manuscript reflecting reviewer’s comments. At the same time, we have condensed the manuscript leaving only essence of development of superalloys and thermal barrier coatings. Updated part of the manuscript is shown as red colored fonts.
Point 10: (243-249) - a serious error of methodological methods because it is not possible to cast individual crystals, but only to analyze them, and materials cast by various methods crystallize by volume (for example: cast iron) and other directional to the geometric core of the product (for example: Al alloy).
Response 10: What we wanted to explain in this paragraph is a cooling system for forming a temperature gradient in a single crystal casting process of superalloys. This cooling system is common and widely used in single crystal casting process, and can be applied not only to superalloys but also to other alloys. Details are described in Ref.[35] (T.M. Pollock, S. Tin, Journal of propulsion and power, 22 (2006) 361-374) and R.C. Reed, The superalloys: fundamentals and applications, Cambridge university press, 2008. Page 136-139.In the last paragraph of “1.3 Manufacturing processes for casting superalloys and high-temperature components”, we describe the reasons why superalloys have poor machinability and some research results about the machinability of superalloys.
Point 11: In many figures there is no explanation of the meaning of the symbols and units used in them.
Point 12: In many workplaces, there are figures without a clear link to the content of the work before and after the figures.
Point 13: Most of the figures included in the study are of poor quality and their descriptions are very poorly developed and illegible.
Response 11-13: While we were shortening our manuscript, we have reflected this comments.
Point 14: In the formulas listed in the tables, there is no explanation of symbols and units.
Response 14: According to reviewer’s comment, we have updated explanation of symbols and units.
Point 15: The editorial and substantive level of the manuscript is poor.
Point 16: This is not a scientific manuscript.
Point 17: The manuscript submitted for assessment cannot be a source of knowledge for students and industrial plants.
Point 18: Conclusions manuscript very sketchy and there are absolutely no conclusions drawn from the content of the entire manuscript.
Response 15-18: We have updated the manuscript significantly reflecting this comment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this review manuscript Wee et. al. represents the current research activities on superalloys and thermal barrier coatings. In this paper, first half is discussed about the different manufacturing process of superalloys in details, whereas in the second half of paper different thermal barrier coating methods has been evaluated such as atmospheric plasma spray, chemical deposition and etc. In addition, Wee et. al. also included different characterization methods such as thermal fatigue evaluation, FEA, laser flash analysis, DSC and etc.
The overall structure of the paper looks like a report, which has a table of content and the introduction without any goal. This paper requires condensation of the text with the proper explanation of superalloy and thermal barrier which is highlighted in the introduction section. The manuscript needs major revision with proper alignment of the section, subtopics, and the goal of the review paper.
- Figures images should be highlighted with full name of copyright journal
- Texts are not aligned with figures, the overall structure doesn’t look like the review paper, need to be bifurcate sections properly with suitable titles.
- This manuscript is 113 pages, which should be condensed in the 10 to 15 pages according to MDPI format
- English requires some changes
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We are sincerely grateful to the reviewers for their kind and very helpful comments. We have revised the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions as follows:
Point 1: Figures images should be highlighted with full name of copyright journal
Response 1: According to reviewer’s comment, we have updated copyright of figures.
Point 2: Texts are not aligned with figures, the overall structure doesn’t look like the review paper, need to be bifurcate sections properly with suitable titles.
Response 2: We have updated the manuscript accordingly. Also, titles are given in the sections.
Point 3: This manuscript is 113 pages, which should be condensed in the 10 to 15 pages according to MDPI format
Response 3: We have shortened the manuscript significantly by leaving important parts. Also, we have abided by the MDPI format.
Point 4: English requires some changes
Response 4: The manuscript has been proofread by a native speaker.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The methodological level of the work submitted for evaluation is still very poor.
2. My comments relate basically to the entire manuscript.
3. The whole work is still out of logical order, contrary to the methodology adopted for this type of manuscript.
4. The executive summary still needs to be redrafted. The abstract should briefly describe the content of the rest of the article - what the manuscript is about and what research will be presented.
5. In many places, the manuscript has been severely shortened and altered, making it difficult to reassess.
6. The methods described do not have a detailed analysis of the obtained mechanical and technological properties of materials produced by these methods.
7. Unclear wording was still used in many places.
8. Some drawings are still of low quality and their descriptions are still very poorly elaborated and illegible.
9. Still in the formulas in the tables there is no explanation of symbols and units.
10. The editorial and substantive level of the article is much better than the first version of the manuscript, but still insufficient to accept it.
11. It is still not a scientific manuscript written according to the methodology.
12. The conclusions of the manuscript are rather a summary of the study rather than conclusions resulting from the analysis of the subject.
My first review was 18 points. It would be good for the authors to refer to each point separately!
Again, I recommend that you discard the manuscript in this form.
Author Response
We are sincerely grateful to the reviewers for their kind and very helpful comments. We have revised the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions as follows:
Point 1: The methodological level of the work submitted for evaluation is still very poor.
Response 1: We have updated the manuscript in most parts by including this comment.
Point 2: My comments relate basically to the entire manuscript.
Response 2: We have updated the manuscript in most parts by including this comment.
Point 3: The whole work is still out of logical order, contrary to the methodology adopted for this type of manuscript.
Response 3: While we are updating the manuscript, we rewrite in most part in logical order.
Point 4: The executive summary still needs to be redrafted. The abstract should briefly describe the content of the rest of the article - what the manuscript is about and what research will be presented.
Response 4: We revised the abstract to briefly describe the content of the manuscript.
Point 5: In many places, the manuscript has been severely shortened and altered, making it difficult to reassess.
Response 5: Other reviewer (Reviewer 2) asked us to reduce the manuscript significantly so we have made the manuscript as concise as possible while maintaining essence of the review.
Point 6: The methods described do not have a detailed analysis of the obtained mechanical and technological properties of materials produced by these methods.
Response 6: We have updated the manuscript by reflecting this comment.
Point 7: Unclear wording was still used in many places.
Response 7: We have clarified wordings in the manuscript.
Point 8: Some drawings are still of low quality and their descriptions are still very poorly elaborated and illegible.
Response 8: We have updated the quality of figures and descriptions.
Point 9: Still in the formulas in the tables there is no explanation of symbols and units.
Response 9: Instead of adding the explanation to the formulas in the table, we removed the table and add the explanation on the paragraph
Point 10: The editorial and substantive level of the article is much better than the first version of the manuscript, but still insufficient to accept it.
Response 10: Since we have updated manuscript in many places by reflecting comments by the reviewer, we think now the paper is clear enough for readers to understand it.
Point 11: It is still not a scientific manuscript written according to the methodology.
Response 11: We have updated the manuscript by reflecting this comment.
Point 12: The conclusions of the manuscript are rather a summary of the study rather than conclusions resulting from the analysis of the subject.
Response 12: Since this paper is a review paper, it is more reasonable to summarize the contents than to conclude results from the analysis of the subject. We switched "Conclusion" to "Summary" and corrected some sentences of the content.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
- Require more references
- Need to condensed more and reduce the spacing of the lines according to the MDPI applied science format.
Author Response
We are sincerely grateful to the reviewers for their kind and very helpful comments. We have revised the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions as follows:
Point 1: Require more references
Response 1: We have add more references.
Point 2: Need to condensed more and reduce the spacing of the lines according to the MDPI applied science format.
Response 2: While we were updating the manuscript, we have condensed the manuscript and abided by the MDPI format.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
