Assessment of Joinability in Additively Manufactured Interlocking Structures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Remove ‘with Experiment and Simulation’

Title and several places in manuscript: Use ‘Additively Manufactured’. Do not use ‘Additive Manufactured’.

Abstract: Why do you talk about the findings of your research in Abstract? The scope of the project is presented in Abstract. The findings of the research is presented in Conclusion.

Introduction:

Authors use Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing back to back.  Use just Additive Manufacturing. DO not use 3D Printing. This is confusing.

For additive manufacturing, define it as AM and keep using just AM.

78-79-80: rewrite the sentence. It is totally unclear.

93: delete ‘prior the publication’.

You use LPBF and also PBF in this paper.. Use just one of them.

175: What is your base for this statement?

Figure 2: Red direction was not defined.

204: What is the impact of key hole effect here?

The error and accuracy of the experimental and analytical studies are not presented. Why?

Starting 271, you started talking about Magnetic 3D Printing. Why did not you explain this before? What is it presented so late? Unclear.

Discussion section does not report a clear picture of the experimental results. There should be more details with graphs and data.

The study is parametric. Sometimes, authors say ‘systematic’. However, the nature of the parametric study is not clearly explained in every step of the paper.

Conclusion does not convey the key findings of this study.

Some references are extremely old and they have no support to this research. Examples: 9, 10, 14

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

I am appreciated to your great interests and helpful comments on this manuscript. With your suggestions and kind contributions, the paper became more reasonable and could carry clear comments on the core of this study.

The detail response can be found in the attached file.

Best regards,

 Hak-Sung Lee

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

Article have to pass very serious correction and probably another review for sure. Huge number of details should be improved as indicated in the file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

I greatly appreciate your keen interest and insightful comments on this manuscript. Your constructive suggestions and valuable contributions have made the paper more coherent and effectively highlighted the essence of this study.

Please see the attachment.

 

Best regards.

Hak-Sung Lee

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript requires improvement before it can be considered for publication.

--Improve English grammar and paper organization (i.e. word choice, sentence structure, don't start sentence with a number - should be Six not 6, title spacing table 1 and others, etc)

--maybe a better word for the arms in the structure would be fins?

--Improve abstract and conclusions. Make sure novel aspects are better detailed.

--Improve Introduction - perhaps discuss applications for the structure. Discuss each reference in more detail. Don't lump references - discuss each individually.

--Intro could use a figure to show structure.

--Reference and material properties  line 55

--Expand the Intro

--figures with multiple items need to be labeled a,b,c,...

--captions need to be more descriptive

--figure 1 and the discussions should include more dimensions and tolerances

--sensitivity analysis and error analysis is needed

-discuss mesh independence 

--provide a detailed drawing of the SS part with dimensions and tolerances

--provide properties of the materials

--better define "Inward deformation"

--discuss references of others that measured direction dependent differences with these materials 

--discuss the amount of contact between parts

--fig 3  (and others) caption needs to discuss each part

--more detailed discussion of results is required

--provide better support conclusions - expand conclusions

--

Comments on the Quality of English Language

--Improve English grammar and paper organization (i.e. word choice, sentence structure, don't start sentence with a number - should be Six not 6, title spacing table 1 and others, etc)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for your thorough review and thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. Your valuable insights and constructive recommendations have been instrumental in enhancing the clarity and focus of the paper.

Please see the attachments.

Warm regards,

Hak-Sung Lee

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good revisions. Acceptable quality.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback on our manuscript.

Following your suggestions, we have increased the number of references from 19 to 35. Furthermore, to enhance the quality of the English used in the manuscript, we sought the expertise of native English-speaking professors specializing in physics and materials science for a thorough revision.

We believe that with these revisions, our manuscript meets the standards for publication in the Crystal Journal.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,

Hak-Sung

   

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors his improved manuscript has addressed most of the concerns however English grammar and lumped references still need to be better addressed .   --Don't lump references - each should be discussed . (i.e here and other locations.....This study is designed to investigate the experimental production of interlocking 63 joints with varying thicknesses, utilizing SUS 17-4PH powder as a representative material 64 for such structures. SUS 17-4PH is chosen due to its suitability for applications demanding 65 high strength, fracture toughness, heat treatment capabilities, excellent welding charac- 66 teristics, and corrosion resistance [19-21].)   --Improve English grammar and paper organization (i.e. word choice, sentence structure, don't start consecutive sentences with the same word, don't use "we", etc)   Comments on the Quality of English Language

--Improve English grammar and paper organization (i.e. word choice, sentence structure, don't start consecutive sentences with the same word, don't use "we", etc)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

We deeply appreciate your constructive feedback on our manuscript.

To address your concerns, we sought the expertise of native English-speaking specialists in physics and materials science to ensure the clarity and precision of our language. Additionally, in line with your suggestions, we have expanded the list of references from 19 to 35. Each of these references has been meticulously revised and verified for accuracy.

With these revisions, we are confident that our manuscript meets the high standards of the Crystal Journal.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,
Hak-Sung