Numerical Modelling and Experimental Validation of Selective Laser Melting Processes Using a Custom Argon Chamber Setup for 316L Stainless Steel and Ti6AI4V

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

REPORTS ON: coatings-3260452

 

 

It is indicated that this proposed manuscript is a resubmission. Based on this, unfortunately, it is not observed substantial improvements. Although the manuscript is not yellow highlighted or differently highlighted to demonstrate its improvements and modifications, it is clearly perceived that there are weaknesses. It seems that Authors have neglected a great number of suggestions to modify the proposed manuscript. Based on this, it NOT DESERVES its final publication. The followed main suggestions and modifications are indicated:

 

1.                    At first at all, a characteristic that manuscript is poorly organized and revised, is clearly observed when both US and British English styles are used. For instance, “behavior” and “behaviour” are indistinctively used in same paragraph. Also the word “fibre” indicates one style, there are other suggesting British style. Although this is not an academic offense, at least, it reveals an absence of “expertise” and “carefully affection” with the organization of the text.

2.                    Considering the Abstract, it should meticulously be revised and improved. At least three distinct verbal tenses are used. It is suggested that only “SIMPLE PRESENT TENSE” be used.

3.                    The Introduction section has distinctive subsections, which are not numbered and relatively out of context. Please, provide a meticulous revision and organization of this section.

4.                    Besides, into the Introduction section, specifically at last paragraph, the NOVELTY should OBLIGATORY be evidenced. For this purpose, a new sentence should be included.

5.                    In lines 220 and 223, there are references lost and erroneously cited.

6.                    The subsection 2.1 has also distinctive other subsections, which are confusing and not adequately organized. Besides, there exists a great number of dimensions and values without its corresponding error ranges. Some values should be organized and included into a Table and not into main text.

7.                    Between lines 338 and 340, there are underlines texts without a substantial context or explanation concerning to.

8.                    Tables 2 and 3 have error in units and should be reorganized and error ranges included. At least the equipment error range should be considered.

9.                    The subsection 3 is confused and should be meticulously reorganized. For instance, what is “real” difference between subsection 3.4 and 3.2?

10.                 Fig. 2 has not scale bar.

11.                 The section 4 has its main results and these are poorly correlated and/or compared with other previously published articles. When this is tried, only a Thesis (Dr. Higgins) is provided.

12.                 Fig. 6 depicts error bars, but it is not understood where these error or deviations come from. Duplicate and/or triplicate is nor mentioned/detailed.

13.                 Table 3 depict “absolute error”, however, this is not explained and not mentioned into Experimental section, concerning its reproducibility.

14.                 If Fig. 7 compares results between experimental and simulated data, at least, it is expected that error bars (ranges) be also depicted. Are these experimental points originated from unique experimentation? If positive case, this is a great problem demonstrating its weakness from reproducibility aspect. If no, again reveals that manuscript is poorly and rather organized.

15.                 The subsection “4.1.1” has no correlations with previously published papers. Although, certain texts and explanations attribute to “literature” certain distortions or not “matching”. This suggests another “weakness” point to be improved and reorganized.

16.                 The subsection “4.1” has also other subsections without an adequate organization.

17.                 Fig. 9 depicts a thermal profile of the examined Ti-based alloy. Although it is clearly observed that “transformation” from solid to molten and vide-versa of the examined alloy, it is suggest that a reference be indicated. This in order to confirm the “supposed” liquid transformation. For instance, there are some “phase diagram” of the examined alloy, which can be referenced and indicated in order to elucidate this question.

18.                 In Figs. 10 and 11, the “melting point” is erroneously indicated or depicted. Besides, this is not mentioned.

19.                 The subsection 4.3 has other subsections not numbered, similarly to previously comments/suggestions.

20.                  Figs. 12 and 13 should be better explained and their corresponding error ranges included. On the other hand, in the present structure, these are merely speculative.

21.                 The subsection 5 should meticulously be revised and reorganized. Distinct sub-sections are proposed and these are not commonly provided and a scientific paper. Please, reorganize in unique subsection.

22.                 Concerning to the proposed list of references, a question is indicated to Authors: Is really enough to cover all literature concern to main matter? Is it an-to-date provided? Are there other papers comparing experimental and simulated data, concerning to laser treatment?

23.                 Finally, it is not encouraged a new (re)submission without substantial modifications mainly considering the number of references cited, the experimental organization and new restructuration of the proposed manuscript.

_ _ _ __   

Comments on the Quality of English Language

At first at all, a characteristic that manuscript is poorly organized and revised, is clearly observed when both US and British English styles are used. For instance, “behavior” and “behaviour” are indistinctively used in same paragraph. Also the word “fibre” indicates one style, there are other suggesting British style. Although this is not an academic offense, at least, it reveals an absence of “expertise” and “carefully affection” with the organization of the text.

Author Response

• Mixed Use of US and British English Styles: Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency in language styles. We have revised the entire manuscript to ensure consistency, opting for British English. This includes consistent spelling such as "behaviour" and "fibre."

• Abstract Revision to Use Simple Present Tense: The abstract has been revised to use only the simple present tense, improving clarity and consistency. This helps to present the research focus and findings more directly and uniformly.

• Introduction Section Reorganization: The Introduction has been meticulously revised and all subsections have been numbered properly. The content has been streamlined to ensure that the subsections flow logically and maintain context within the scope of the paper.

• Highlighting the Novelty in the Introduction: We have added a new sentence to the last paragraph of the Introduction to explicitly highlight the novelty of this study, which emphasizes the development of a validated thermal model using a custom Argon Chamber setup to bridge experimental and numerical approaches in SLM.

• Correcting Missing and Erroneously Cited References: The references in lines 220 and 223 have been corrected. All citations have been cross-checked to ensure accuracy and consistency throughout the manuscript.

• Reorganizing Subsection 2.1 and Adding Error Ranges: Subsection 2.1 has been reorganized, and all subsections are now properly structured. We have also added error ranges to the reported dimensions and values, where applicable. Some of these values have been moved to a new table for better clarity.

• Explaining Underlined Text in Lines 338-340: The underlined text in lines 338-340 has been revised to include proper context and explanation. This ensures that the reader can understand the significance of the points.

• Errors in Tables 2 and 3 and Including Error Ranges: We have corrected the units in Tables 2 and 3 and included error ranges for each value. Equipment error ranges have not been considered but will be studied in future work.

• Reorganizing Subsection 3 for Clarity: Subsections 3.2 and 3.4 have been integrated to remove redundancy, and the entire section has been reorganized for clarity. The differences between the subsections have been clarified to enhance the logical flow.

• Adding a Scale Bar to Figure 2: Dimensions in text and naming on the figure were provided. No scale bar is required.

• Clarifying Error Bars in Figure 6: Figure 6 now clearly explains the origin of the error bars. We have specified that the data represent averages.

• Explaining "Absolute Error" in Table 3: We have added an explanation of "absolute error" in the Experimental section, detailing how reproducibility was ensured.

• Correlation in Subsection 4.1.1: Subsection 4.1.1 has been expanded to include comparisons with previously published papers, strengthening the correlation between our results and existing literature.

• Reorganizing Subsections of Subsection 4.1: Subsection 4.1 and its subsections have been reorganized to improve the logical flow and overall readability.

• Adding Reference for Ti-Based Alloy Transformation in Figure 9: The melting point is correct and shown with a dotted line. It is a standard material property that is published in hundreds of papers. 

• Correcting Melting Point in Figures 10 and 11: no correction is required.

• Numbering Subsections in Subsection 4.3: As suggested, the subsections in Subsection 4.3 have been numbered to maintain consistency throughout the document.

• Improving Explanation and Adding Error Ranges to Figures 12 and 13: Figures 12 and 13 have been revised with more detailed explanations, and corresponding error ranges have been included to add robustness to the presented data.

• Revising and Reorganizing Subsection 5: The section is well organized into sections with subtitles to respond to other reviewers' requests.

• Updating the List of References: The reviewer is confusing our paper, which is a standard research paper, with a Review Paper! Only a review paper should include all or a longer list of cited research related to the paper topic.

• Substantial Modifications and Restructuring: The manuscript has undergone substantial modifications, including restructuring the experimental section, updating references, and addressing all organizational issues. We believe these changes significantly improve the quality of the manuscript and make it suitable for resubmission.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This re-submitted paper was of good quality already in its previous form and is further improved. The comments from the last review have been considered when preparing the current paper. The reviewer would like to recommend just one minor suggestion. The authors used the section name of '5. Discussion' for the 5th section. Since this section also contains the main conclusions, the reviewer would like to recommend using '5. Discussion and conclusion' instead of just discussion.

Author Response

Thank you. We responded and changed the section 5 title as requested.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, the authors developed and validated a numerical model to optimize the Selective Laser Melting (SLM) process for 316L stainless steel (316L SS) and Ti6Al4V. The experimental validation was initially conducted solely on 316L SS due to budget constraints, enabling the refinement of the finite element (FE) model before expanding its implementation to Ti6Al4V, making it a potential candidate for publication in the Journal of COATING. Nevertheless, the reviewer has provided specific comments that warrant attention and consideration. 

1.      What are the key factors influencing the thermal behavior during Selective Laser Melting (SLM)?

2.      How can accurate thermal modeling be developed to predict melt pool geometry, solidification patterns, and residual stress formation in SLM-manufactured parts?

3.      What is the potential impact of incorporating machine learning techniques into traditional thermal modeling methods, particularly in improving the accuracy and predictive capabilities of models, and how can this advancement reduce computation times and enhance the precision of SLM process simulations, driving further advancements in additive manufacturing technologies

4.      What impact does the employment of fine and coarse meshes for the powder layer and substrate have on capturing detailed thermal gradients and reducing computation time, and how does this meshing strategy contribute to the accuracy and efficiency of the numerical model for predicting global temperature fields during the SLM process.

5.      How does the experimental validation of the thermal models for predicting the temperature distribution and melt pool dimensions during the SLM process pave the way for further optimization of SLM processing parameters, ultimately enhancing the quality and reliability of additive manufacturing, while providing a robust foundation for future research and development in the field of SLM.

6.      How do the process correlation maps in Table 5 aid in comparing the maximum temperature, melt pool width, and depth sizes under varying laser powers and scanning speeds, and how can these maps facilitate the selection of optimal processing parameters based on specific criteria?

7.      How does the validation of a finite element model with 316L SS by employing various laser powers provide critical insights into the behavior of the melt pool characteristics, and what are the implications for the optimization of processing parameters and the quality of SLM-produced parts.

8.      The authors must list the key results as the concluding section.

Author Response

• Key Factors Influencing Thermal Behavior During SLM: The thermal behaviour during Selective Laser Melting (SLM) is primarily influenced by the rapid heating and cooling cycles, which create steep thermal gradients and high cooling rates. These thermal gradients directly affect microstructural evolution, solidification patterns, and residual stresses, which in turn impact the final mechanical properties of the manufactured parts. Factors such as laser power, scanning speed, and environmental conditions (e.g., use of inert gases like Argon) play significant roles in determining the temperature distribution, melt pool geometry, and overall quality of SLM-produced parts.
• Accurate Thermal Modeling for Predicting Melt Pool Characteristics: Developing accurate thermal models is critical for predicting melt pool geometry, solidification patterns, and residual stress formation in SLM-manufactured parts. Using temperature-dependent material properties, phase transformations, and detailed boundary conditions within finite element analysis (FEA) helps to simulate these complex interactions with high accuracy. Such models provide insights vital for optimising processing parameters, improving material properties and enhancing reliability in the final products.
• Impact of Machine Learning on Thermal Modeling: Incorporating machine learning techniques into traditional thermal modelling methods can significantly enhance these models' accuracy and predictive capabilities. By analysing large datasets from experimental and simulation results, machine learning can help identify patterns that improve process predictability and control. Additionally, machine learning models can reduce computation times by providing faster approximations of thermal behaviours, making SLM process simulations more efficient and driving further advancements in additive manufacturing technologies​.
• Effect of Meshing Strategies on Thermal Gradients: Using fine and coarse meshes for the powder layer and substrate plays a crucial role in capturing detailed thermal gradients and reducing computation times. Fine meshing provides high spatial resolution to capture sharp thermal gradients in the powder bed, while coarse meshing for the substrate helps in reducing the computational load. This meshing strategy contributes to the overall accuracy and efficiency of the numerical model, ensuring precise predictions of global temperature fields during the SLM process​.
• Experimental Validation and Optimisation of SLM Processing Parameters: The experimental validation of thermal models for predicting temperature distribution and melt pool dimensions is fundamental for optimising SLM processing parameters. Validated models allow for a more reliable prediction of thermal behaviour, thus enabling the fine-tuning of laser power, scanning speed, and other processing parameters. This enhances the quality and reliability of the parts manufactured through SLM and provides a robust foundation for future research and development, ultimately advancing additive manufacturing technologies​.
• Role of Process Correlation Maps in Parameter Selection: The process correlation maps in Table 5 are instrumental in comparing the maximum temperature, melt pool width, and depth under varying laser powers and scanning speeds. These maps help select the optimal processing parameters by visualising how combinations impact the melt pool characteristics. By utilising these maps, manufacturers can identify the most suitable conditions to achieve defect-free and consistent melting, thereby ensuring better quality control in SLM-produced parts​.
• Implications of Finite Element Model Validation with 316L SS: Validating a finite element model using 316L stainless steel (SS) under different laser power settings provides critical insights into melt pool characteristics' behaviour. The successful validation demonstrates the model's capability to predict thermal distribution accurately, which is essential for optimising processing parameters. This also implies improvements in the quality of the SLM-produced parts by enabling better control of melt pool size and solidification behaviour, leading to consistent mechanical properties and reduced defects​. By validating the thermal model with 316L SS, we have demonstrated its potential to be adapted for more complex and expensive materials like Ti6Al4V. This approach ensures that initial experimentation costs are minimised while providing a reliable basis for future work to predict the microstructural characteristics of Ti6Al4V components.

We included the above points in the findings (results) sub-section under section 5.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately, it is not possible to identify the modifications provided. At least , it should be yellow highlighted into the revised version. Although a great number of improvements are mentioned into Rebuttal letter, these modifications are very difficulty to compare with previous version. In this sense, it is expected that a new version be attached highlighting each rebuttal .

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments 

Author Response

• Mixed Use of US and British English Styles: Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency in language styles. We have revised the entire manuscript to ensure consistency, opting for British English. This includes consistent spelling such as "behaviour" and "fibre."

• Abstract Revision to Use Simple Present Tense: The abstract has been revised to use only the simple present tense, improving clarity and consistency. This helps to present the research focus and findings more directly and uniformly.

• Introduction Section Reorganization: The Introduction has been meticulously revised and all subsections have been numbered properly. The content has been streamlined to ensure that the subsections flow logically and maintain context within the scope of the paper.

• Highlighting the Novelty in the Introduction: We have added a new sentence to the last paragraph of the Introduction to explicitly highlight the novelty of this study, which emphasizes the development of a validated thermal model using a custom Argon Chamber setup to bridge experimental and numerical approaches in SLM.

• Correcting Missing and Erroneously Cited References: The references in lines 220 and 223 have been corrected. All citations have been cross-checked to ensure accuracy and consistency throughout the manuscript.

• Reorganizing Subsection 2.1 and Adding Error Ranges: Subsection 2.1 has been reorganized, and all subsections are now properly structured. We have also added error ranges to the reported dimensions and values, where applicable. Some of these values have been moved to a new table for better clarity.

• Explaining Underlined Text in Lines 338-340: The underlined text in lines 338-340 has been revised to include proper context and explanation. This ensures that the reader can understand the significance of the points.

• Errors in Tables 2 and 3 and Including Error Ranges: We have corrected the units in Tables 2 and 3 and included error ranges for each value. Equipment error ranges have not been considered but will be studied in future work.

• Reorganizing Subsection 3 for Clarity: Subsections 3.2 and 3.4 have been integrated to remove redundancy, and the entire section has been reorganized for clarity. The differences between the subsections have been clarified to enhance the logical flow.

• Adding a Scale Bar to Figure 2: Dimensions in text and naming on the figure were provided. No scale bar is required.

• Clarifying Error Bars in Figure 6: Figure 6 now clearly explains the origin of the error bars. We have specified that the data represent averages.

• Explaining "Absolute Error" in Table 3: We have added an explanation of "absolute error" in the Experimental section, detailing how reproducibility was ensured.

• Correlation in Subsection 4.1.1: Subsection 4.1.1 has been expanded to include comparisons with previously published papers, strengthening the correlation between our results and existing literature.

• Reorganizing Subsections of Subsection 4.1: Subsection 4.1 and its subsections have been reorganized to improve the logical flow and overall readability.

• Adding Reference for Ti-Based Alloy Transformation in Figure 9: The melting point is correct and shown with a dotted line. It is a standard material property that is published in hundreds of papers. 

• Correcting Melting Point in Figures 10 and 11: no correction is required.

• Numbering Subsections in Subsection 4.3: As suggested, the subsections in Subsection 4.3 have been numbered to maintain consistency throughout the document.

• Improving Explanation and Adding Error Ranges to Figures 12 and 13: Figures 12 and 13 have been revised with more detailed explanations, and corresponding error ranges have been included to add robustness to the presented data.

• Revising and Reorganizing Subsection 5: The section is well organized into sections with subtitles to respond to other reviewers' requests.

• Updating the List of References: The reviewer is confusing our paper, which is a standard research paper, with a Review Paper! Only a review paper should include all or a longer list of cited research related to the paper topic.

• Substantial Modifications and Restructuring: The manuscript has undergone substantial modifications, including restructuring the experimental section, updating references, and addressing all organizational issues. We believe these changes significantly improve the quality of the manuscript and make it suitable for resubmission.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the trying improvements, it seems that its final publication is deserved. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is devoted to the construction of a finite element model of the SLM process. At the same time, the model undergoes thorough experimental validation, which allows us to speak about its usability for understanding various thermal processes occurring in the melt pool. The model is tested on stainless steel (316L SS) and Ti6Al4V titanium alloy. I believe that the proposed paper will be useful to those who are involved in modeling the 3D printing process. However, the paper needs some revision. The article is overloaded with information in all its sections; very few references are used. There is no review of existing models. The most important comment is that the subject of the paper goes beyond the topics of the journal. Therefore, the paper should be rejected.

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and suggestions regarding our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of the finite element model and its thorough experimental validation. We have carefully revised the manuscript in response to your feedback.

1. Overload of Information: We have reviewed each section of the manuscript and streamlined the content to improve clarity and focus. While the paper covers both modeling and experimental validation, we believe the depth of information provided is necessary to demonstrate the model's accuracy and relevance to the SLM process. However, where possible, we have reorganized the content to make the manuscript more concise and easier to follow without losing essential details.

2. Few References Used: In response to your concern regarding the limited number of references, we have significantly expanded the literature review and added numerous recent and relevant references that pertain to SLM modeling, thermal processes, and experimental validation. The updated manuscript now includes 26 references, covering key studies in the field, including work on 316L stainless steel, Ti6Al4V, and finite element modeling of the SLM process.

3. No Review of Existing Models: We have added further details in the introduction and related sections regarding existing finite element models for SLM, highlighting the challenges and opportunities within the field. This additional content provides a clearer context for our work, and positions our model in relation to established studies. We also describe how our model builds upon previous research by incorporating temperature-dependent material properties and providing experimental validation for multiple materials (316L SS and Ti6Al4V), which is a notable strength of our work.

4. Subject Matter of the Paper: We respectfully disagree with the comment that the subject of the paper goes beyond the topics of the journal. The finite element modeling of thermal processes in the SLM process, along with its experimental validation, is directly relevant to thermal analysis, material behavior, and process optimization—areas of interest to the journal’s readership. The contributions of this work to the understanding of melt pool dynamics, phase transformations, and material properties under SLM are well within the scope of research topics typically covered in the journal.

In conclusion, we believe the revised manuscript better addresses the balance between detailed modeling and experimental validation, is well-supported by up-to-date references, and fits within the journal's focus areas. We hope these changes meet your expectations and demonstrate the paper’s contribution to the field of SLM process modeling.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper proposed a new numerical model for the simulation of melt pool geometry of the laser 3D printing of metals, with a finite element method. The paper is very well organized and provides very detailed results and discussions. The model is compared and validated with experimental results. The proposed numerical method is thought to be useful for the designing of the laser 3D printing process. The reviewer would like to recommend this paper with some minor comments.

1. The paper structure is in overall well organized, but at some points, contains too many details. More comprehensive discussions are recommended.

2. The authors used the term 'SLM' for describing the laser processing used in the experiment. The term SLM is indeed a product name of laser powder bed fusion machine manufacturer, which typically means laser powder bed fusion process. However, the experimental set-up shown in Fig.2 is for a direct energy deposition process. There are technologically a big difference between laser powder bed fusion and direct energy deposition processes and the authors should provide more detailed description on which process they were originally focused for developing the numerical model. 

 

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their positive feedback and insightful comments. Below, we provide a response to the minor issues raised and outline the changes we made to address them.

1. Paper Structure and Comprehensive Discussions: We acknowledge the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the level of detail in some sections of the paper. In response, we have reviewed and streamlined the content to maintain clarity and focus. While retaining the necessary technical details, we have enhanced the comprehensive discussions in the results and analysis sections to ensure the key findings are clearly articulated without overwhelming the reader.

2. Clarification on 'SLM' and Experimental Setup: The reviewer raises an important point regarding the use of the term ‘SLM.’ We appreciate this feedback, and we have clarified the experimental setup in the manuscript to avoid any confusion between Selective Laser Melting (SLM) and Direct Energy Deposition (DED). Specifically, we have added a detailed explanation in the text to clarify that while the experimental setup used in this study was a practical solution due to the unavailability of a true SLM machine, the custom-designed Argon Chamber and alternative laser system were implemented to replicate SLM conditions. The numerical model developed was always intended for SLM applications, and we have now emphasized that despite the experimental constraints, the model is validated and applicable to a true SLM process.

We hope these revisions meet the reviewer’s expectations and enhance the clarity and technical rigor of the manuscript. We believe the paper now provides a more precise description of the experimental setup and model validation, contributing to a better understanding of the work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

REPORTS ON: coatings-3180834

 Although the proposed manuscript has certain “Novelty”, it is rather and poorly organized. There is a great number of weaknesses, which induce to its REJECTION. This is based on the follow aspects:

 

1.                    Firstly, the reproducibility is rather and poorly described. Duplicate and/or triplicate is nor mentioned/detailed. Based on this, the attained results are merely speculative.

2.                    The organization is confused and a great number of subsections are proposed. Majority is merely speculative and/or poorly correlated with achieved results.

3.                    The simulation details are rather and poorly demonstrated with the problematic involving the matter proposed.

4.                    Subsection 2.3 is mismatched with proposed aim of the manuscript. Tables 1 and 2 are merely speculative. No error ranges are considered.

5.                    What is the difference between section 2 and 3? Are these adequately proposed in terms of the involved parameters and experimental (real) parameters?

6.                    Should a scale bar be depicted in Fig. 2?

7.                    Figs. 3, 4 and 5 are poorly referenced/commented and its captions are poorly explicative. In really, these are very confusing.

8.                    Sub-section 4.11 and 4.2 are very confused and disconnected with proposed aim of the manuscript. Besides, sub-section 4.2 is doubly proposed.

9.                    Figs. 10, 11 12 and 13 are speculative since its reproducibility and its corresponding duplicate are not depicted/demonstrated.

10.                 Sub-section 5.3 is very confused and speculative. No reference and scientific contribution are associated.

11.                 Sub-section 5.5 is completely out of context and poorly adequate with proposed manuscript.

12.                 The list of reference is constituted by only 18 references, which strongly need to an up-to-date and intimately association with those attained results and simulation parameters. When the maim matter is researched in literature, at least 2000 articles recently published are obtained. This indicated that a PRISMA should be adequately provided by Authors before a new submission indicating the new contributions and previously articles concerning to matter.

13.                 Finally, it is not encouraged a new (re)submission without substantial modifications mainly considering the number of references cited, the experimental organization and new restructuration of the proposed manuscript.

_ _ _ __   

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No specific comments, although there are errors concerning to "spelling" and grammar" in the proposed manuscript. It is not DESERVED its publication.

____

Author Response

1. Reproducibility and Experimental Results

We appreciate the reviewer’s concern regarding reproducibility. While the current manuscript does not explicitly detail triplicate experiments, we have revised the methods section to clarify that multiple measurements were taken to ensure accuracy. Specifically, we now include a statement confirming that experiments were repeated under the same conditions to verify the consistency of results. While the paper's focus is on modeling and validation, this clarification ensures that the experimental process is adequately supported.

2. Organization of the Manuscript

We have taken the reviewer’s feedback regarding the organization to heart. In response, we reviewed the overall structure of the manuscript and reduced unnecessary subsections to streamline the presentation. We also improved the correlation between each section and the results, ensuring that each part of the manuscript clearly contributes to the central objectives. This revision enhances clarity and focuses on the key findings of our work.

3. Simulation Details

The details of the simulation process were expanded to address the reviewer’s concern about clarity. Specifically, we have added more detailed descriptions of the boundary conditions, material properties, and key parameters used in the simulations. This additional information will help readers better understand the challenges and solutions involved in modeling the SLM process and ensure that the method is well-demonstrated.

4. Subsection 2.3 and Tables 1 and 2

We understand the reviewer's concern regarding Subsection 2.3 and the perceived speculative nature of Tables 1 and 2. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified that the material properties listed in these tables are derived from established sources in the literature. Furthermore, while no error ranges were originally provided, we have now added an acknowledgment that error ranges will be studied in future work, addressing variability in material properties as part of further optimization.

5. Difference Between Sections 2 and 3

The distinction between Sections 2 and 3 has been clarified. Section 2 focuses on the numerical modeling and its parameters, whereas Section 3 discusses the experimental setup and real-world tests. We have now included a transition at the end of Section 2 and the beginning of Section 3 to make it clear how the numerical parameters align with and differ from the experimental parameters. This clarification ensures that both sections are adequately proposed in terms of their focus.

6. Scale Bar in Fig. 2

We appreciate the suggestion regarding Fig. 2. We added a geometrical description of the argon chamber.

7. Confusion in Sub-sections 4.1 and 4.2

The confusion in Sub-sections 4.1 and 4.2 has been resolved. We have revised the content to ensure that both subsections are directly aligned with the manuscript’s objectives. The redundancy noted in Sub-section 4.2 has been corrected, and the text is now more cohesive and better reflects the paper’s focus on thermal modeling and validation.

8. Speculative Nature of Figs. 10, 11, 12, and 13

The reproducibility of the results presented in Figs. 10, 11, 12, and 13 has been clarified in the text. While we have not duplicated the exact figures, we have included additional commentary explaining that multiple experiments were conducted to ensure the reliability of the results. We believe this explanation addresses the reviewer’s concern regarding reproducibility while maintaining the paper’s focus.

9. Sub-section 5.3

Sub-section 5.3 has been revised to include more detailed scientific contributions and references to support the discussion of the method’s advantages and disadvantages. This revision ensures that the sub-section is less speculative and clearly anchored in relevant literature, addressing the reviewer’s concern about the lack of references.

10. Sub-section 5.5

Sub-section 5.5 has been removed and its contents was shifted to the introduction section.

11. Number of References

We have significantly expanded the number of references in the manuscript, addressing the reviewer’s concern. The updated manuscript now includes 26 references, all of which are directly related to the SLM process, modeling techniques, and experimental validation. These references provide a strong foundation for the discussion and results presented in the paper.

12. Resubmission and Substantial Modifications

We have made substantial revisions to the manuscript based on the reviewer’s comments. The paper has been restructured, additional references have been included, and the experimental details have been clarified. We believe these changes have significantly improved the manuscript and aligned it more closely with the standards expected for this field of research. We look forward to the reviewer’s further feedback.