Comparison of Quality of Porous Structure Specimens Produced by Different Additive Technologies and from Different Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: Comparison of Porous Structures Specimen’s Quality Produced 2 by Different Additive Technology and from Different Materials

The investigated topic is interesting and has a broad application area. However, the paper requires a major revision before it can be accepted for publication. The following issues should be addressed by the authors before a decision can be reached:

1.      In what ways do different writers talk about the application of digital measurement tools to the study of internal structures, intricate geometries, and surface textures in additive manufacturing?

2.      What are the many technologies and measuring techniques mentioned for assessing the intricate internal structures, surface textures, and geometries of additive products?

3.      Please change the labels and written texts on the figure 5 and 6.

4.      How was the volume and surface of the test specimens assessed, and what methodology or tools were used to calculate the percentage change compared to the theoretical value obtained from the CAD model?

5.      What specific factors were considered or excluded in the analysis when determining the volume change, particularly in relation to material pores or other characteristics?

6.      Could you explain the visible material layering observed in specimens manufactured by FDM technology and its impact on the surface area compared to the theoretical surface?

7.      How does the surface area of the red specimens compare with the black specimens in both lattice and gyroid structures, and what might account for the observed differences in surface size?

8.      Were any connections made between the surface traits and the specimens' overall performance or structural integrity during the study?

9.      In terms of general implications, how can these results affect the choice of suitable structures, materials, or technology for using additive technologies to manufacture particular products?

The written English is mostly good and just need minor modifications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1- There are a lot of grammatical errors in the writing. 

2- In the introduction, the authors mostly stated that a research has been conducted on a subject without mentioning the outcome of the research. for instance, on page 2, the authors stated “Kudelski et al. [18] were comparing costs, material and printing time, using FDM and SLS, based on production batch size.”, However, the result of this comparison is unknown.  Similar statements are present throughout the introduction.

3- The authors compare 3 types of samples ( red, black, and grey). The deposition method for the grey samples is SLS whereas the other two were deposited using FDM. However, the authors have not mentioned why the grey sample was not deposited with FDM? Or why SLS was not used for the others? For the sake of better comparison, the grey samples should also deposited using FDM and compared to the red and the black ones.

4- on page 6, section 2.3, lots of information is included regarding the optical microscope which is not necessary for this paper and can be found for the specific microscope on the manufacturer's website. This part should be revised.

5- Figures 5 and 6, the names of the features are not in English.   

6- the captions for most of the figures should be edited and the name of the characterization method should be added.

7- Figures 5 and 6 should be combined so the result presentation is similar to Figures 8 and 10.

8- in figures 5, 6, 8, and 10, the magnification of the images is not similar. The same magnification is better used for a better understanding of the differences.

9- Why did the authors include section 3.1.7? This part was not in the scope of work and including the data does not help with the paper unless the printer is used for all the other sample types too.

10- Tables 10 to 14 should be combined.

11- On page 12, the authors stated that the method they are using is not working for the FDM samples and the data stated in the table is not correct. Therefore, they should find another algorithm/method to fully quantify the porosity in these samples.

14- How the surface and volume of test specimens were  assessed in Section 3.1.3?

There are a lot of grammatical errors in the writing that makes it hard to understand the sentences. It is better to ask a native English person to revise the paper. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf