Numerical Calculation of the Arc-Sprayed Particles’ Temperature in Transient Thermal Field
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
comments file is attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Mr./Ms, thank you for reviewing our paper and for your valuable comments. The answers to your comments are detailed below, and the text has been modified accordingly.
Q1: Table 2 gives the initial parameter values for the sprayer. Some information is required for the values assumed. Is there a method for selection of a specific value? The inlet pressure is given as 6 bars. What happens if it is chosen as 5 bars? The same argument applies for the outlet velocity, nozzle -arc distance and the degree of turbulence at the inlet.
Answer 1: In general, in the case of electric arc thermal spray process, the working pressure is between 4.0 - 6.0 bar. In this simulation, based on the experience of the research team, we chose an average value of the spray pressure, respectively 5.0 bar. Yet, from a regrettable mistake, in the original paper was written the 6-bar pressure – this error was corrected. For processes that run at higher working pressures (about 6 bar) it is assumed that accentuated turbulence phenomena may appear, i.e. random trajectories of small particles may be observed in the spray jet. We take into consideration a further study for the 6 bar pressure and the dissemination of the results in another scientific paper.
We have added in the paper the completions between the lines 181 – 186.
Q 2: Table 2 also defines values for Local arc temperature and average wire temperature. Are they typical values met in practice? Any information on the wire used and voltage-current characteristics of the arc?
Answer 2: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added in the paper completions between the lines 189 – 191.
Q3: Figure 7 displays fluid temperature variation inside the model. It is seen from Figure 7a that the peaks of the temperature curves are always at the same X point for the various axial directions. Similar response is also present in Figure 7b for the perpendicular directions. Any physical explanation of the response?
Answer 3: Thank you for your comment, it is pertinent and helped us to complete the discussion of the paper. We have added in the paper completions between the lines 316 – 333.
Reviewer 2 Report
First of all, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to evaluate this work.
The work appears to be very interesting and I suggest it be published.
However, there are some shortcomings in the introduction and discussion part of the article.
If these are corrected, the article can be published.
I will suggest you a few articles to eliminate these shortcomings.
1. Comparison of calcium–magnesium-alumina-silicate (CMAS) resistance behavior of produced with electron beam physical vapor deposition (EB-PVD) method YSZ and Gd2Zr2O7/YSZ thermal barrier coatings systems
2. TGO growth and kinetic study of single and double layered TBC systems.
3. Investigation of calcium–magnesium-alumino-silicate (CMAS) resistance and hot corrosion behavior of YSZ and La2Zr2O7/YSZ thermal barrier coatings (TBCs) produced with CGDS method
4. Oxidation and hot corrosion resistance of HVOF/EB-PVD thermal barrier coating system
5. Comparison of microstructure and oxidation behavior of CoNiCrAlY coatings produced by APS, SSAPS, D-gun, HVOF and CGDS techniques
6. Performance of single YSZ, Gd2Zr2O7 and double-layered YSZ/Gd2Zr2O7 thermal barrier coatings in isothermal oxidation test conditions
7. Formation and growth behavior of TGO layer in TBCs with HVOF sprayed NiCr bond coat
8. Interface failure behavior of yttria stabilized zirconia (YSZ), La2Zr2O7, Gd2Zr2O7, YSZ/La2Zr2O7 and YSZ/Gd2Zr2O7 thermal barrier coatings (TBCs) in thermal cyclic exposure
9. Investigation of the effect of V2O5 and Na2SO4 melted salts on thermal barrier coatings under cyclic conditions
10. Evaluation of oxidation and thermal cyclic behavior of YSZ, Gd2Zr2O7 and YSZ/Gd2Zr2O7 TBCs
11. Isothermal oxidation and thermal cyclic behaviors of YSZ and double-layered YSZ/La2Zr2O7 thermal barrier coatings (TBCs)
12. Investigation of hot corrosion behavior of thermal barrier coating (TBC) systems with rare earth contents
13. Evaluation of Hot Corrosion Behavior of APS and HVOF Sprayed Thermal Barrier Coatings (TBCs) Exposed
14. Hot corrosion behavior of YSZ, Gd2Zr2O7 and YSZ/Gd2Zr2O7 thermal barrier coatings exposed to molten sulfate and vanadate salt
15. The microstructural investigation of vermiculite-infiltrated electron beam physical vapor deposition thermal barrier coatings
16. Isothermal oxidation behavior of gadolinium zirconate (Gd2Zr2O7) thermal barrier coatings (TBCs) produced by electron beam physical vapor deposition (EB-PVD) technique
17. Oxidation behavior of NiCr/YSZ thermal barrier coatings (TBCs)
18. Comparison of microstructures and oxidation behaviors of ytria and magnesia stabilized zirconia thermal barrier coatings (TBC)
Author Response
Rev. 2.
The data specified in the submitted review are not part of this article.
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall, the paper looks good; however, the following revisions should be made before publication:
The quality of the figures should be improved.
Section 3.1: The authors have only presented the results in the results section. There is no discussion and critical analysis. Please, discuss Figure 7 and provide solid reasons for why there is a change in the behaviour of the graphs.
Section 3.2: Please, provide a neat and clear Figure 8. This Figure also needs a detailed discussion of why there is variation.
The result and discussion section require in-depth discussion and critical analysis. Therefore, I would recommend adding a discussion section after the results.
I would further suggest adding experimental results and comparing them with the numerical results.
Please, revise the conclusions accordingly. Also, adding Figures and Equation numbers in the conclusions is not good.
Author Response
Dear Mr./Ms, thank you for reviewing our paper and for your valuable comments. The answers to your comments are detailed below, and the text has been modified accordingly.
Observation 1: The quality of the figures should be improved
Answer 1 – We have checked and modified some figures (Figure 1, Figure 8).
Observation 2: Section 3.1: The authors have only presented the results in the results section. There is no discussion and critical analysis. Please, discuss Figure 7 and provide solid reasons for why there is a change in the behaviour of the graphs
Answer 2- We have included in the text discussions of the results represented by the figures in the article (lines 316 – 333, which are highlighted with yellow).
Observation 3: Section 3.2: Please, provide a neat and clear Figure 8. This Figure also needs a detailed discussion of why there is variation.
Answer 3- We have modified Figure 8 and included discussion of it (lines 370 – 381 which are highlighted with yellow).
Observation 4: The result and discussion section require in-depth discussion and critical analysis. Therefore, I would recommend adding a discussion section after the results. I would further suggest adding experimental results and comparing them with the numerical results. Please, revise the conclusions accordingly. Also, adding Figures and Equation numbers in the conclusions is not good.
Answer 4- We have amended many of the original conclusions, as per your suggestions and these are highlighted in yellow (lines 385 – 405).
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have not addressed one my comments in the first round of review:
I would further suggest adding experimental results and comparing them with the numerical results.
Why the authors did not perform the experimental results. This would give a great comparison and improvement in the paper.
Thanks.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to understand our work and for giving us some wonderful suggestions that have made our work very good. We apologize that in the previous revision, we omitted to experimentally validate the analytical model presented by us. Although it took us some time (a few good days), we experimentally validated the model and the results are presented in the paper. So we added rows 282-298, table 3, subchapter 4.3, figure 9 as well as rows 430-434 from the conclusions. These changes complement the changes we made (at your suggestion) to the previous revision. Indeed, our work has acquired another value, much better, which is why we thank you - once again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
