Advancements in Hybrid Additive Manufacturing: Integrating SLM and LMD for High-Performance Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed your manuscript on the hybrid fabrication of SLM and LMD, and I find it to be a unique and valuable contribution to the field. However, the paper requires improvements in its scientific format. The main points of concern are as follows:

1. Lack of in-text citations makes it difficult to assess the appropriateness and sufficiency of the references used. Please ensure that citations are properly integrated into the text.

2. The section on results and discussion seems to lack clarity and structure. It is recommended to clearly separate the methodology, results, and discussion for better organization and coherence.

In addition to these major points, several minor issues have been identified, which need to be addressed in the revision:

Specific Comments

1. The accuracy of the positioning of both systems is highlighted as important, but it is unclear to what extent this has been achieved and whether there are any previous studies on this topic.

2. The explanation of Table 1 is necessary, particularly regarding the terms "Material1," "Interface material," and "Material2." It is unclear what these refer to, especially the usage and purpose of the Interface material.

3. The description of SLM's Laser strategy is missing and should be included.

4. Material property values for 316L and 1.2709 need to be provided separately.

5. The tensile test requires the notation of sample numbers and statistical analysis.

6. There is a discrepancy between the explanation of the method and the content of the results. The explanation of the method, where it states that the system was changed every 50mm, does not match the content of the results. Please accurately describe the method.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "Advancements in Hybrid Additive Manufacturing: Integrating 2 SLM and LMD for High-Performance Applications" exhibits significant potential, presenting a novel premise that could substantially contribute to the field.

However, the research is deficient. The study lacks comprehensive data and methodology analysis necessary to substantiate the claims made. Consequently, the findings, as currently presented, do not provide a robust foundation for the conclusions drawn.

To fully realize the potential of this manuscript, it is imperative that further, more thorough investigations are conducted. More extensive empirical evidence will be essential to validate the hypotheses proposed.

The info regarding the experimental data is directly included in the Results and Discussion section and not in the Materials and Methods.

There is no sufficient info regarding the experiments; for example, in the mechanical tests, there is no number of the specimens tested for the exposed results. Another example, in Figure 3 there is no info regarding the gray areas that appear in the images (there is no gray colour in the band of the legend). Again in the hardness results, the images show the only carried-out tests or there are examples and more experimental essays have been carried out?

Addittionally, there are some minor issues that can be solved:

Lines 32, 61, 67, 73, and 291. There is a space to delete.

Line 40. This line needs to be deleted.

Line 107. The format is not correct

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is correct, only few little mistakes are done.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached review.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revision. Several of the points were appropriately addressed. However, the following two points still require correction:

1. Please include the sample size and statistical processing for the evaluation of mechanical properties in the Materials and Methods section, and clarify the results of the statistical analysis in the main text or figures.
2. The Materials and Methods section only mentions that the method changes every 50mm, but Fig. 3 shows that the ratio of SLM to LMD appears to be approximately 2:3 in Strategies 1 and 2. Additionally, for Strategies 3 and 4, which use Interface materials, the thickness of each Interface material is unclear, so please include this information in the Materials and Methods section. The results in Fig. 3 indicate that the Interface thickness differs significantly between Strategies 3 and 4. Furthermore, the hardness test results in Fig. 6 show a change in hardness around 42mm, suggesting a different method, which contradicts the description in the Materials and Methods section that the method changes every 50mm.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have explained the challenges they faced in creating a cohesive article. Nevertheless, despite the novelty they claim, i still feel that the number of experiments conducted are insufficient. At least 10 hardness measurements need to be carried out, and not just 3.

Please reconsider this suggestion to ensure a minimum level of certainty in the results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are only a few minor English mistakes. The English could be improved in a higher level according to a standard article, but it is not important because it is still correct.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for revising the explanation about sample preparation. That can help readers understand the results correctly.
However, I couldn't find the revision referring to the sample size and statistical analysis although authors said that "We have now included this information into the manuscript. (chapter 3.1)".

How many samples were prepared and what kind of statistical analysis were performed?

Author Response

Comment 1: However, I couldn't find the revision referring to the sample size and statistical analysis although authors said that "We have now included this information into the manuscript. (chapter 3.1)".

3D-Printed sample dimensions: line 184 - 192

Tensile sample dimensions: line 228 - 240.

 

Comment 2: How many samples were prepared and what kind of statistical analysis were performed?

For all mechanical testing, three samples (line 265-267, line 292-296) were utilized to ensure the reliability of the data. Standard deviation was employed as a statistical tool to quantify the variability and consistency of the results (ploted in Figure 6, mentioned in line 297-298). This approach provided a robust measure of dispersion around the mean, allowing for an accurate assessment of the repeatability and precision of the mechanical properties being tested. 

All above mentioned lines are highlighted. 

Thank you very much for your time and detailed revisions of the paper. Your expertise and thorough feedback have been invaluable in enhancing the quality and clarity of our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I understand that the authors faced challenges. However, I hope that in future works, they will include a substantial number of experiments.

Please include a better explanation of the number of conducted tests in hardness at least.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are only a few minor English mistakes. The English could be improved in a higher level according to a standard article, but it is not important because it is still correct.

Author Response

Comment 1: Please include a better explanation of the number of conducted tests in hardness at least.

We have now included this information into the manuscript