Laser Additive Manufacturing of Fe-Based Magnetic Amorphous Alloys
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article ‘Laser Additive Manufacturing of Fe-based magnetic amorphous alloys’ presents a review of the properties of amorphous soft magnetic materials and focuses on the description of two particular preparation methods: Selective Laser Melting and Laser Engineered Net Shaping. The paper is well written and is suitable to be published in Magnetochemistry in its current status.
Author Response
The whole manuscript has been checked and revised in terms of formatting, editing and proofreading.
Reviewer 2 Report
-The abstract should be revised because in the view of the reader it may be understood that the authors did some own investigations and it is not a summary of different publications. The same applies to the conclusion.
-Many figures or tables have poor resolution or inadequate graphical representation. Are they available in the publications with better resolution or can be made by yourself? The labels of the graphs and tables contain mostly too little information about what can be seen in them. In addition, they are for a specific alloy. This must be included and not a generalization like “Fe-based alloy”. Also, some figures or tables have no spacing from the text passages above or below them.
-Between a number and a unit, they shouldn´t be divided in two rows, see abstract line 9 and line 10: 20-40 ppm. In addition, there should be a space between each number and the unit (see line 47: 1 T not 1T). Please do not insert a space between a number and a percent sign (see line 62: 20% not 20 %). Please check the complete publication.
-Please, only use one spelling for the units (for example, only m/s or mm/s). Also, there are different spellings for the abbreviations or designations of the same things such as Fe-based in line 2 and Fe- based (with space) in line 8 and Fe based in line 32. Also applies to the figure names, e.g. "Figure 8(a) or Figure 8 (c)". Please check the whole document regarding different spellings for the same designations (for example, scan speed or scan rate) and units (for example, K s-1 and K/s).
-Do not separate designations and their abbreviations with a comma (see line 77 for "saturation magnetostriction constant, λs”). In addition, it is sufficient if the abbreviations are mentioned once in the document. Please check and adjust the whole document.
-Introduced formulas must be explicitly mentioned in the text. In addition, the formulas must have the same layout. For example, for a multiplication, an "x" and not an "x" for one formula and no "x" for the other formula. The detailed description of the formula in the text should also be consistent and the units should not be given for one formula and not for another formula. Please check the entire document.
-Do not give a rating in a sentence: “… gave a better thermal…” What is better? Please use adequate words like “….gave a higher thermal…”. Please check the complete publication.
-The document has many minor errors such as different line spacing of the text, misplaced commas, semicolons, spaces, and hyphens. Please check the complete publication.
-Please, use a consistent spelling throughout the document for words separated by a slash. Either with or without spaces between the words and the slash (examples line 376 and line 360).
-Does a semicolon belong at the end of line 32?
-The correct name of the process in line 42 is injection moulding and not injection casting.
-Line 43: Copper mould casting is not the right term. Only copper moulds are used in the casting process.
-Please subscript the numbers within the alloy compositions (example line 44 for Fe66Co10Mo3.5P10C4B4Si2.5). Please subscript these numbers throughout the document.
-The elements in the brackets make the sentence in lines 64-65 unintelligible "Typical chemical compositions are (Fe,Co,Ni) 70-85 at.% :(Si,B) 15-30 at.%." Please rewrite.
-The unit K s-1 in line 70 is incorrect. The correct unit is in line 157 (K/s).
-Line 106-115: Source of the section?
-How is it shown by Table 1 that no recrystallization occurs during annealing (line 113)?
-Line 126: Additive manufacturing of amorphous Fe-based magnetic alloys
-Line 141: Could you be more specific regarding the “thin layer” and “very fine powder”. In general, please provide more information about process parameter in SLM. The additional information are useful to classify and compare it.
-The word "powders" is used many times in the document (line 142, etc.). However, the various works presented only ever process one type of powder. Please write in the singular.
-Lines 145-146: There are more factors which are critical for the SLM process, not only powder and packing.
-Line 147: Remove hyphen between "two" and "powder".
-Line 151: Remove the hyphen at the beginning of the sentence.
-Line 157: Remove the spaces between the numbers and the cooling rate hyphen.
-Line 162: A powder distribution is usually given as a range or average particle size. With just the maxima it could be understand wrong cause “particle size below 355 µm”. 355 µm would be huge particle sizes by the way any the would effect the process in a negative way because usually in SLM is around 25-100 µm layer thickness. If possible, always indicate the powder particle distribution.
-Which figure is meant by the words "The figure shows ..." in line 173?
-Line 177: Must say "specimens" and not the singular.
-Arrow is guiding in the wrong direction in the Figure 5. Please adjust the figure properly and note this in the figure caption. Please do not insert technically incorrect figures.
-In line 185, instead of "alloy", shouldn't it be "specimen or specimens"?
-Replace AM in line 191 with SLM.
-A space is missing between the two source numbers 57 and 58 in line 200. Please check the whole document.
-Line 217: Adequate word for laser speed would be laser velocity / scan speed, but “laser rate” is unusual. Please, check the whole document.
-Line 221-223: That’s true, but only with this experimental setup (machine, laser spot size, material, powder diameter, specimen size and geometry etc…). If something will be changed, it may also change the optimum laser scan speed.
-Which test load or other settings were used to determine the hardness values, including those in line 223?
-The sentence in lines 225-226 contains a completely different alloy and manufacturing process. Does the hardness comparison therefore make sense?
-Line 234-238: Source of the section?
-Please, select a name other than "laser irradiation" in the sentence of the lines 236-238.
-Figure 8: Section micro hardness is missing. Only three graphs are given, but descripted four.
-Line 245-246: In general, please be more specific regarding the values “low laser power” could also be named as “laser power less than XX W”
-Figure 9: In the given picture, single parameter combination were used. However between these points, the source interpolated values – this should be mentioned.
-Figure 9: Amorphous content of more than 100% is impossible, isn´t it?
-Line 264-265: Beside the laser power, parameter like pulse duration and spot diameter are important to classify the achieved results. Did they remelt the surface or was it a kind of heat treatment? Furthermore, are there 2 or 3 processing steps (1. checkboard strategy, 2. P-R strategy with random pulses, 3. short-pulse amorphization)? This is not evident from the sentences in lines 260-265.
-What is meant by the term "second melting" in line 275? All 2 (or 3) processing steps twice or first the checkboard strategy and then another strategy? Please write this in more detail and easier to understand.
-Table 2: Please create the table yourself and do not paste it as an image with poor quality.
-Line 286: Spreading is the wrong word to describe the recoating process of a new layer of powder
-Line 287: They did not rescanned the powder layer a second time. I expect that the powder is molten after the first scanning.
-Line 313-319: Source is missing.
-Line 316: Which poor mechanical properties?
-Line 319: Please remove the semicolon after “density”.
-In line 356, please remove the semicolon after "[81]" and start with a lowercase letter in line 357.
-The unit in line 357 is not correct.
-Lines 363-383: Contain the same source. Why are the authors mentioned it twice and in different spellings?
-Please remove the space between ~ and 1.7 in line 400. Check the whole document.
-In the comparison in the sentence in lines 400-402, which samples are meant by ".... compared with the most of samples."?
-Which alloy is meant by the sentence in lines 433-435? Please mention in the sentence.
-Lines 439-441: It cannot be said across the board that the SLM and LENS methods are cost-effective and less time-consuming. Compared to which other manufacturing processes?
-Line 442-443: Please adjust the written in: … low energy input (low laser power and high scanning rate)….
-Table 3: Could the authors name the average particle size, the range or d50? Please make the table more attractive.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comment
Point 1: The abstract should be revised because in the view of the reader it may be understood that the authors did some own investigations and it is not a summary of different publications. The same applies to the conclusion.
Response 1: We have now revised both abstract and conclusion according to the comment of the reviewer. Please refer to the revised manuscript.
Point 2: Many figures or tables have poor resolution or inadequate graphical representation. Are they available in the publications with better resolution or can be made by yourself? The labels of the graphs and tables contain mostly too little information about what can be seen in them. In addition, they are for a specific alloy. This must be included and not a generalization like “Fe-based alloy”. Also, some figures or tables have no spacing from the text passages above or below them.
Response 2: The figures that had poor resolution have been changed with the ones with high resolution.
-The explanations of the information on graphs and tables are given in the text and figure/table captions.
-The manuscript has been edited according to the journal format.
Point 3: Between a number and a unit, they shouldn´t be divided in two rows, see abstract line 9 and line 10: 20-40 ppm. In addition, there should be a space between each number and the unit (see line 47: 1 T not 1T). Please do not insert a space between a number and a percent sign (see line 62: 20% not 20 %). Please check the complete publication.
Response 3: The manuscript has been checked entirely in detail and the minor errors have been eliminated.
Point 4: Please, only use one spelling for the units (for example, only m/s or mm/s). Also, there are different spellings for the abbreviations or designations of the same things such as Fe-based in line 2 and Fe- based (with space) in line 8 and Fe based in line 32. Also applies to the figure names, e.g. "Figure 8(a) or Figure 8 (c)". Please check the whole document regarding different spellings for the same designations (for example, scan speed or scan rate) and units (for example, K s-1 and K/s).
Response 4: The manuscript has been checked entirely in detail and all the minor errors have been eliminated.
Point 5: Do not separate designations and their abbreviations with a comma (see line 77 for "saturation magnetostriction constant, λs”). In addition, it is sufficient if the abbreviations are mentioned once in the document. Please check and adjust the whole document.
Response 5: The manuscript has been checked entirely in detail and all the minor errors have been eliminated.
Point 6: Introduced formulas must be explicitly mentioned in the text. In addition, the formulas must have the same layout. For example, for a multiplication, an "x" and not an "x" for one formula and no "x" for the other formula. The detailed description of the formula in the text should also be consistent and the units should not be given for one formula and not for another formula. Please check the entire document.
Response 6: The manuscripts has been checked entirely in detail and all the minor errors have been eliminated.
Point 7: Do not give a rating in a sentence: “… gave a better thermal…” What is better? Please use adequate words like “….gave a higher thermal…”. Please check the complete publication.
Response 7: The manuscript has been checked entirely in detail and better vocabulary has been utilized.
Point 8: The document has many minor errors such as different line spacing of the text, misplaced commas, semicolons, spaces, and hyphens. Please check the complete publication.
Response 8: The manuscripts has been checked entirely in detail and all the minor errors related to punctuations have been eliminated.
Point 9: Please, use a consistent spelling throughout the document for words separated by a slash. Either with or without spaces between the words and the slash (examples line 376 and line 360).
Response 9: The manuscripts has been checked entirely in detail and all the minor errors associated with the formatting have been eliminated.
Point 10: Does a semicolon belong at the end of line 32?
Response 10: Yes, it should belong at the end of line 32 (line 36 now) because the sentence does not end there.
Point 11: The correct name of the process in line 42 is injection moulding and not injection casting.
Response 11: We thank the reviewer for noticing this. It has been changed to injection moulding.
Point 12: Line 43: Copper mould casting is not the right term. Only copper moulds are used in the casting process.
Response 12: After revising the manuscript, it is in the line 52 now. Also, the term of copper mould casting was altered to casting techniques.
Point 13: Please subscript the numbers within the alloy compositions (example line 44 for Fe66Co10Mo3.5P10C4B4Si2.5). Please subscript these numbers throughout the document.
Response 13: All the alloy compositions in the alloy spelling are subscripted now.
Point 14: The elements in the brackets make the sentence in lines 64-65 unintelligible "Typical chemical compositions are (Fe,Co,Ni) 70-85 at.% :(Si,B) 15-30 at.%." Please rewrite.
Response 14: In order to clarify the sentence, it is rewritten in the text as “Typical chemical compositions are such that the combined compositions of Fe, Co, Ni elements are 70-85 at.% and those of Si and B are 15-30 at.% in total” (Line 69-70).
Point 15: The unit K s-1 in line 70 is incorrect. The correct unit is in line 157 (K/s).
Response 15: It has been changed to K/s.
Point 16: Line 106-115: Source of the section?
Response 16: The reference has been added (Line 111-120).
Point 17: How is it shown by Table 1 that no recrystallization occurs during annealing (line 113)?
Response 17: The reviewer is right. Table 1 do not indicate that no recrystallization occurs during annealing. Thus, the term of “without resulting in recrystallization” has been removed from the text (Line 118).
Point 18: Line 141: Could you be more specific regarding the “thin layer” and “very fine powder”. In general, please provide more information about process parameter in SLM. The additional information are useful to classify and compare it.
Response 18: Additional information has been given as “a thin layer (typically 20-100 µm) of very fine powder (with particle size in the range of 20-50 µm)” (Line 147-148).
Point 19: The word "powders" is used many times in the document (line 142, etc.). However, the various works presented only ever process one type of powder. Please write in the singular.
Response 19: It has been written as singular “powder” through the whole text.
Point 20: Lines 145-146: There are more factors which are critical for the SLM process, not only powder and packing.
Response 20: Laser process parameters (laser scan speed, laser power, pulse duration and spot diameter) has been added to the sentence (Line 152-153).
Point 21: Line 147: Remove hyphen between "two" and "powder".
Response 21: It has been removed (Line 156).
Point 22: Line 151: Remove the hyphen at the beginning of the sentence
Response 22: It has been removed (Line 163).
Point 23: Line 157: Remove the spaces between the numbers and the cooling rate hyphen.
Response 23: It has been removed (Line 169).
Point 24: Line 162: A powder distribution is usually given as a range or average particle size. With just the maxima it could be understand wrong cause “particle size below 355 µm”. 355 µm would be huge particle sizes by the way any the would effect the process in a negative way because usually in SLM is around 25-100 µm layer thickness. If possible, always indicate the powder particle distribution.
Response 24: Powder size range of 75 µm and 150 µm has been given (Line 173-174).
Point 25: Which figure is meant by the words "The figure shows ..." in line 173?
Response 25: “The figure 6 shows” was meant and it is rewritten as this way (Line 185).
Point 26: Line 177: Must say "specimens" and not the singular.
Response 26: It has been changed to “specimens” (Line 189).
Point 27: Arrow is guiding in the wrong direction in the Figure 5. Please adjust the figure properly and note this in the figure caption. Please do not insert technically incorrect figures.
Response 27: The figure has been changed and the direction of the arrow has been corrected (Line 190). Also, the figure caption has been rewritten as “Relative density map of the SLM specimens as a function of laser power and scan speed whose values increases in the directions of arrows” (Line 191-192).
Point 28: In line 185, instead of "alloy", shouldn't it be "specimen or specimens"?
Response 28: It has been changed to “specimens” (Line 199).
Point 29: Replace AM in line 191 with SLM.
Response 29: It has been changed to “SLM” (Line 205).
Point 30: A space is missing between the two source numbers 57 and 58 in line 200. Please check the whole document.
Response 30: It has been corrected. (Line 215).
Point 31: -Line 217: Adequate word for laser speed would be laser velocity / scan speed, but “laser rate” is unusual. Please, check the whole document.
Response 31: The term of “laser scan speed” has been used for the whole text.
Point 32: Line 221-223: That’s true, but only with this experimental setup (machine, laser spot size, material, powder diameter, specimen size and geometry etc…). If something will be changed, it may also change the optimum laser scan speed.
Response 32: It has been rewritten as “it can be said that 400 mm/s is the optimum laser scan speed to achieve both densification and high amorphous phase fractions for Fe-Si-B alloys” (Line 237-238).
Point 33: Which test load or other settings were used to determine the hardness values, including those in line 223?
Response 33: It has been rewritten as “hardness was measured by a Vickers microhardness tester with a load of 100 gr. The high micro hardness values (1654-2273 HV) were observed, linking to the crystallite size refinement as well as the dissolution of boron into the amorphous matrix” (Line 238-241).
Point 34: The sentence in lines 225-226 contains a completely different alloy and manufacturing process. Does the hardness comparison therefore make sense?
Response 34: The compositions of both alloys are similar to each other, which are Fe92.4Si3.1B4.5 produced with SLM and Fe70Si10B20 fabricated with melt spinning technique. Therefore, it was intended to compare the two manufacturing processes (Line 240-241).
Point 35: Line 234-238: Source of the section?
Response 35: The reference of the source has been added (Line 249-253).
Point 36: Please, select a name other than "laser irradiation" in the sentence of the lines 236238.
Response 36: The term of “laser irradiation” has been changed with “originated from laser melting process” (Line 253).
Point 37: Figure 8: Section micro hardness is missing. Only three graphs are given, but descripted four.
Response 37: It has been edited.
Point 38: Line 245-246: In general, please be more specific regarding the values “low laser power” could also be named as “laser power less than XX W”
Response 38: The sentence has been rewritten as “It indicates that low laser power (P < 200 W) and high laser scan speed (v > 700 mm/s) result in larger amorphous phase fractions” (Line 261-262).
Point 39: Figure 9: In the given picture, single parameter combination was used. However, between these points, the source interpolated values – this should be mentioned.
Response 39: The sentence of “the data were interpolated between the measured data points” has been added to the Figure 9 caption (Line 272).
Point 40: Figure 9: Amorphous content of more than 100% is impossible, isn´t it?
Response 40: It is indeed impossible. However, the graph (Figure 9 (b)) was taken from a source and we thought that y-axis (amorphous content (%)) is in the range of 0-120 in order to show the data points clearly. If it was only up to %100, S1 data point would not be seen properly.
Point 41: Line 264-265: Beside the laser power, parameter like pulse duration and spot diameter are important to classify the achieved results. Did they remelt the surface or was it a kind of heat treatment? Furthermore, are there 2 or 3 processing steps (1. checkboard strategy,
- P-R strategy with random pulses, 3. short-pulse amorphization)? This is not evident from the sentences in lines 260-265.
Response 41: In order to clarify the processing steps, the sentence has been rewritten as “The strategy comprises of (1) the preliminary laser melting the loose powder by using a checkboard strategy, (2) second melting (re-melting) by random pulses (point-random (P-R) strategy) and (3) finally short-pulse amorphization” (Line 277-279).
- A paragraph has been added to the text to explain the pulse duration (exposure time) and heating rate effect on the glass forming abilities of the alloys;
“It is assumed that if the amorphous phase is heated by a laser pulse to a maximum temperature with a heating rate lower than the critical value, it devitrifies. In this study, the critical heating rate was calculated as 8.77×106 K/s, at which the amorphous phase does not devitrify till the melting point of the material is reached. The heating rate for the preliminary melting (pulse duration (exposure time) 500 µs) (Sample A) was estimated as 2.5×106 K/s, which is below critical heating rate value. The heating rate of the second melting (P-R remelting with the pulse duration of 20 µs) (Sample B) was approximated as 6.25×107 K/s, which is higher than the critical heating rate.” (Line 297-303)
Point 42: What is meant by the term "second melting" in line 275? All 2 (or 3) processing steps twice or first the checkboard strategy and then another strategy? Please write this in more detail and easier to understand.
Response 42: In order to clarify the processing steps, the sentence has been rewritten as “The strategy comprises of (1) the preliminary laser melting the loose powder by using a checkboard strategy, (2) second melting (re-melting) by random pulses (point-random (P-R) strategy) and (3) finally short-pulse amorphization” (Line 277-279).
Point 43: Table 2: Please create the table yourself and do not paste it as an image with poor quality.
Response 43: We have created the table.
Point 44: Line 286: Spreading is the wrong word to describe the recoating process of a new layer of powder.
Response 44: We have changed it to “before the coating of a subsequent powder layer”, as this is the terminology used in the reference paper.
Point 45: Line 287: They did not rescan the powder layer a second time. I expect that the powder is molten after the first scanning.
Response 45: From the paper methodology section it states: “In the double-scan strategy, before coating of second powder layer, a laser with the same power and scan speed was used to re-scan in a manner perpendicular to the trace of the previous scan.” There is no mention of the powder state during the second scan of the process within the published literature, therefore it is not possible to speculate the state of the powder during the second scan.
Point 46: Line 313-319: Source is missing.
Response 46: The source has been added (Line 352).
Point 47: Line 316: Which poor mechanical properties?
Response 47: The sentence has been rewritten as “Hence, low energy input results in poor mechanical properties (hardness and mechanical strength).” (Line 348-349)
Point 48: Line 319: Please remove the semicolon after “density”.
Response 48: It has been removed.
Point 49: In line 356, please remove the semicolon after "[81]" and start with a lowercase letter in line 357.
Response 49: It has been removed.
Point 50: The unit in line 357 is not correct.
Response 50: It has been changed.
Point 51: Lines 363-383: Contain the same source. Why are the authors mentioned it twice and in different spellings?
Response 51: In Line 405 (which was Line 383 before), “In the study by Balla et al.” has been changed with “In this study”.
Point 52: Please remove the space between ~ and 1.7 in line 400. Check the whole document.
Response 52: It has been removed and the whole document has been checked.
Point 53: In the comparison in the sentence in lines 400-402, which samples are meant by ".... compared with the most of samples."?
Response 53: The term of ".... compared with the most of samples." has been changed with “the other FeSiBNbCu samples with different Si/B ratios.” (Line 437)
Point 54: -Lines 439-441: It cannot be said across the board that the SLM and LENS methods are cost-effective and less time-consuming. Compared to which other manufacturing processes?
Response 54: “…compared with the conventional techniques that have been used to produce amorphous alloys, such as casting.” has been added at the end of the sentence (Line 480).
Point 55: Line 442-443: Please adjust the written in: … low energy input (low laser power and high scanning rate)….
Response 55: The sentence has been rewritten as “Generally, low energy input, achieved via high laser power and low laser scanning speed, brings about increased amorphous phase content due to higher cooling rate, but decreases relative density and deteriorates mechanical properties.” (Line 482-484)
Point 56: Table 3: Could the authors name the average particle size, the range or d50? Please make the table more attractive.
Response 56: We have changed the powder size in the column to the max powder size given.
Please also find the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this article, authors have prepared a review on Fe-based amorphous magnetic materials developed by laser additive manufacturing. Overall, the presentation is rather similar to an encyclopedia style. I have some general comments for the authors that would help with more clarification in this article:
- Page 1, lines 27-38: Authors have mentioned various applications for which Fe-based soft magnetic materials are promising for. They have been widely studied and found to be potential candidates for magnetic refrigeration applications based on the magnetocaloric effect. Many Fe-based magnetocaloric materials are highlighted in recent review publications: Prog. in Mater. Sci. 93 (2018) 112 etc. The existence of Fe-based magnetocaloric materials as single or multi-phase configuration can bring upon improvements to performance and temperature span (https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819724-0.00038-0).
- Page 6, lines 133-134: Almost all the cited references 38-44 are on Laser additive manufacturing of Fe-based materials, which will be more appropriate to use for the second last sentence in the same paragraph instead (Lines 136-138: "This section reviews the AM of amorphous magnetic materials for different laser-based AM techniques...")
- Hence, it is recommended to authors to find more relevant references to cite for their sentence, "Several Fe-based magnetic materials produced by additive manufacturing have been studied owing to their wide range of potential applicability in the energy area" (Page 6, lines 133-134). Some of related literature on AM methods that are not just restricted to Laser-types AM: a) DOI: 10.1109/JMEMS.2019.2910215 b) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.03.026 c) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.101049 d) DOI: 10.1109/TMAG.2017.2698034 e) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-016-0737-3 f) DOI: 10.3390/ma10101199
- Page 6, lines 146-148: Revise the sentence, "Selective laser sintering (SLS), used for various polymers, and selective laser melting (SLM), utilized only..." for clarity.
- Units consistency: In the beginning of the manuscript, authors used "K s-1" as rate units but "K/s", "mm/s" etc. in later parts of the article. It would be good to keep consistency and revise which style or type of denominator presentation to authors' preference.
- Units consistency for magnetic properties: Either stick to SI units or CGS instead of a combination. The same is also applied to the figures used in the manuscript: figs. 6,8,11 etc.
- Fig. 8: According to the figure captions, there is (b) panel that shows micro-hardness but this is not found in the image. Please revise the figure or captions accordingly.
- Figures throughout the manuscript: They are taken from literature and most of them are with labels corresponding to the sample denotation of the original work. It would be reader-friendly to indicate what these labels refer to and the sample compositions for clarity. For e.g., what are S1, S2 and S3 in Fig 9. Samples A and B in Fig 11 and its figure captions?
- Table 2: The current version looks like a cropped image. It is recommended to change into a table format and also indicate clearly the sample compositions.
- Fig. 19: What are A-F labels in the graph referring to?
- How does the properties (magnetic or mechanical) of the Fe-based amorphous magnetic materials manufactured from laser additive manufacturing compare to traditional manufacturing techniques? The connection and comparison with the magnitudes of the properties where available from the literature, can also show the improvement in the Fe-based magnetic materials manufactured by AM, if any. This comparison is useful for the readers and will be useful to literature and the community.
- Authors are highly recommended to proofread, revise errors and improve the language throughout the article. One e.g., for page 1, line 14: "Two scanning strategy..." has to be changed to "Two scanning strategies..."
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comment
Point 1: Page 1, lines 27-38: Authors have mentioned various applications for which Fe-based soft magnetic materials are promising for. They have been widely studied and found to be potential candidates for magnetic refrigeration applications based on the magnetocaloric effect. Many Fe-based magnetocaloric materials are highlighted in recent review publications: Prog. in Mater. Sci. 93 (2018) 112 etc. The existence of Fe-based magnetocaloric materials as single or multi-phase configuration can bring upon improvements to performance and temperature span (https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819724-0.00038-0).
Response 1: The sentence has been rewritten as “Functional magnetic materials (FMMs) have gained considerable interest for advanced engineering devices owing to their technical benefits for energy conversion, harvesting, transmission, sensing/actuation [1] and more recently for magnetic refrigeration applications based on their magnetocaloric affect [2]. (Line 30-33)
Point 2: Page 6, lines 133-134: Almost all the cited references 38-44 are on Laser additive manufacturing of Fe-based materials, which will be more appropriate to use for the second last sentence in the same paragraph instead (Lines 136-138: "This section reviews the AM of amorphous magnetic materials for different laser-based AM techniques...")
Response 2: All the suggested changes have been made. Please refer to the text (138-144).
Point 3: Hence, it is recommended to authors to find more relevant references to cite for their sentence, "Several Fe-based magnetic materials produced by additive manufacturing have been studied owing to their wide range of potential applicability in the energy area" (Page 6, lines 133-134). Some of related literature on AM methods that are not just restricted to Laser-types AM: a) DOI: 10.1109/JMEMS.2019.2910215 b) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.03.026 c) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.101049 d) DOI: 10.1109/TMAG.2017.2698034 e) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-016-0737-3 f) DOI: 10.3390/ma10101199
Response 3: All the suggested changes have been made. Please refer to the text (138-144).
Point 4: Page 6, lines 146-148: Revise the sentence, "Selective laser sintering (SLS), used for various polymers, and selective laser melting (SLM), utilized only..." for clarity.
Response 4: To clarify the point, the sentence has been rewritten as “Selective laser sintering (SLS), used generally for various polymers and for some metals with the help of sacrificial binder materials, and selective laser melting (SLM), utilized only for certain metals are the two powder bed fusion processes, which use a laser. In SLS process, only sintering occurs between powder particles once temperature is increased with a high-power laser above the softening point of polymers. On the other hand, in SLM technique, a relatively higher-powered laser is exploited to fully melt metallic powder instead of sintering it.” (Line 153-158).
Point 5: Units consistency: In the beginning of the manuscript, authors used "K s-1" as rate units but "K/s", "mm/s" etc. in later parts of the article. It would be good to keep consistency and revise which style or type of denominator presentation to authors' preference.
Response 5: The whole manuscript has been edited according to the reviewer’s comment. "K/s", "mm/s" style has been utilized.
Point 6: Units consistency for magnetic properties: Either stick to SI units or CGS instead of a combination. The same is also applied to the figures used in the manuscript: figs. 6,8,11 etc.
Response 6: SI units have been used in the manuscript. For Figs. 6, 8, 11 that contain CGI units, the sentence of “(CGS to SI conversion 1 emu/g = 1 Am2/kg and 1 Oe = 79.6 A/m)” has been added to the figure captions in order to provide conversion values.
Point 7: Fig. 8: According to the figure captions, there is (b) panel that shows micro-hardness but this is not found in the image. Please revise the figure or captions accordingly.
Response 7: It has been revised.
Point 8: Figures throughout the manuscript: They are taken from literature and most of them are with labels corresponding to the sample denotation of the original work. It would be readerfriendly to indicate what these labels refer to and the sample compositions for clarity. For e.g., what are S1, S2 and S3 in Fig 9. Samples A and B in Fig 11 and its figure captions?
Response 8: For clarification, the sentence of “The data were interpolated between the measured data points” has been added to the caption of Figure 9. (Line 273)
Point 9: Table 2: The current version looks like a cropped image. It is recommended to change into a table format and also indicate clearly the sample compositions.
Response 9: The table has been recreated. The caption has been revised to “Coercivity of feedstock powder and melted samples of Fe71Si10C6Cr2 (at.%) alloy” (Line 310)
Point 10: Fig. 19: What are A-F labels in the graph referring to?
Response 10: The sentences of “(A, B, C, D, E and F denotes Fe41Co7Cr15Mo14C15B6Y2 samples that were produced using different laser parameters, i.e., laser energy density (LED). A and E has the same LED, however for A, P=300 W and v=5 mm/s and for E, P=600 W and v=10 mm/s)” has been added to the figure caption for clarification.
Point 11: How does the properties (magnetic or mechanical) of the Fe-based amorphous magnetic materials manufactured from laser additive manufacturing compare to traditional manufacturing techniques? The connection and comparison with the magnitudes of the properties where available from the literature, can also show the improvement in the Fe-based magnetic materials manufactured by AM, if any. This comparison is useful for the readers and will be useful to literature and the community.
Response 11: It is very hard to find that Fe-based amorphous materials produced with conventional techniques, whose compositions are same or very similar to the those of Fe-based glassy alloys fabricated with AM technique in the literature. This is because the laser additive manufacturing of Fe-based amorphous materials has not been a well-studied subject. For this reason, this manuscript has been written to encourage researchers to work on this subject.
Nevertheless, the SLM technique has been compared with the modified melt spinning technique in terms of hardness because the compositions of the alloys are very similar;
Fe92.4Si3.1B4.5 produced by SLM and Fe70Si10B20 fabricated with the modified melt spinning technique. Please refer to the text (Line 232-242). Also, Young’s modulus has been compared between SLM and casting techniques with the sentence of “mechanical test revealed that the Young’s modulus of the SLM bulk FeCrMoCB alloy (220 GPa) was fairly close to the modulus of the cast amorphous alloys with similar composition (190-220 GPa)” (Line 203-205).
Point 12: Authors are highly recommended to proofread, revise errors and improve the language throughout the article. One e.g., for page 1, line 14: "Two scanning strategy..." has to be changed to "Two scanning strategies..."
Response 12: The whole manuscript has been proofread and revised.
Please also find attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
thank you very much for the revision of your publication. However, there are still some points that need to be revised.
General points:
- Please mention the material alloy used in the caption of all figures (Figure 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18).
- Protected spaces between number and unit so that they are not over 2 lines (see among others line 181 “1500” and line 182 “mm/s”). Please review the entire document and the captions of the figures and tables.
- Please use uniform notation for the terms (see, among others, sub-satisfactory notation for ε-Fe-Si (line 221) and ε-FeSi (line 222)).
- Uniform spelling in the figures captions. In the figure 8 caption, the (a) is followed by a lowercase letter ((a) evolution). In figure caption Figure 9, however, with a capital letter ((a) Amorphous). Please check all figures.
- Abbreviations may only be used after the meaning has been described in the text. For example, the “λs” in line 82 is not explained until line 90.
- Wasn't the quality of figure 1, among others, better in the first paper version? Please check the quality of the figures.
- The LENS method is treated only secondarily in the abstract. The abstract deals almost exclusively with the SLM method. Please also deal with the LENS method.
Paper references:
- Please replace the Turkish "ve" with the English "and".
- Please use consistent formatting. Either write out the journals in the sources or abbreviate them.
- Doesn't the comma after the respective paper title belong after the » character? E.G.: «Additive manufacturing of magnetic materials»,
- Please remove "%1 içinde" from source 26, 36, 50 and 77.
- In source 57, please insert a space between "laser melting" (not: lasermelting).
- Please include all authors in the sources. These are missing in sources 47 and 48, among others.
Paper text:
- Please remove the commas in line 99.
- Line 131: The abbreviation "AM" should already be introduced in line 58.
- Line 161 and line 162: SLM has been (singular).
- Lines 236 and 237: 400 mm/s scanning speed is only the optimum for the otherwise used machine parameters. It is not the best speed in general. Please mention this.
- Please remove the semicolon in line 24, 36, 272, 285, 311 and 449.
- In line 286, the letter "b" was forgotten. “... loose powder by using ...”.
- Line 304 states that all samples in Figure 11 have almost the same properties. However, when looking at Figure 11, sample A has different properties? Accordingly, write in line 304 that all samples except sample A, show almost the same properties.
- Please insert a space in line 361 after (a).
- Doesn't the "V" in formula 4 have to be written with a lowercase letter? See line 388.
- Line 388: Is the unit "W/mm.K" correct?
- Line 397: Please use another name for "laser scanning rate" (see rest of document).
- Line 403: Please adjust the formatting of the numbers with spaces 3.38 x 103 and 1.72 x 103 K/s (see line 298).
- Figure 17: Please mention the meaning of the abbreviations Tg, Tx1, Tx2 and Tx3 in the figure caption.
- Lines 439-441: The sentence is highlighted in yellow. However, it does not contain any changes compared to the first version?
- Line 446: Please insert space. P = 300 W (not P=300 W). Also applies to the rest of this line.
- Lines 456-469: The section is about Table 3, but the section only includes SLM and no mention of LENS? Please also mention the LENS process here.
- Line 464: Insert space. … [8] possess….
- Line 479: The sentence is still technically incorrect. High laser powers and low scanning speeds lead to a high energy input and not to a low one. Please correct this sentence.
- Table 3: Can't you reduce the font size or increase the column width here. This would make the formatting of the table better and more beautiful.
Best regards
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 (Round 2)
General points:
Point 1: Please mention the material alloy used in the caption of all figures (Figure 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18).
Response 1: All the figures now contain the material alloys that were used in the studies.
Point 2: Protected spaces between number and unit so that they are not over 2 lines (see among others line 181 “1500” and line 182 “mm/s”). Please review the entire document and the captions of the figures and tables.
Response 2: The manuscript has been revised according to the reviewer’s comment.
Point 3: Please use uniform notation for the terms (see, among others, sub-satisfactory notation for ε-Fe-Si (line 221) and ε-FeSi (line 222)).
Response 3: The manuscript has been revised according to the reviewer’s comment.
Point 4: Uniform spelling in the figures captions. In the figure 8 caption, the (a) is followed by a lowercase letter ((a) evolution). In figure caption Figure 9, however, with a capital letter ((a) Amorphous). Please check all figures.
Response 4: All the figure captions have been edited and lower case has been used after the terms of “(a), (b) and (c)”
Point 5: Abbreviations may only be used after the meaning has been described in the text. For example, the “λs” in line 82 is not explained until line 90.
Response 5: The terms of “λs” was described in the abstract section (line 9) and in the caption of figure 2 (line 87), but it has been described again in line 82.
Point 6: Wasn't the quality of figure 1, among others, better in the first paper version? Please check the quality of the figures.
Response 6: All the figures has been checked.
Point 7: The LENS method is treated only secondarily in the abstract. The abstract deals almost exclusively with the SLM method. Please also deal with the LENS method.
Response 7: The following sentences have been added to the abstract section;
“On the other hand, the LENS technique has not been utilized as much as SLM in the production of amorphous alloys owing to its lower geometric accuracy (0.25 mm) and lower surface quality despite its benefits such as providing superior mechanical properties, controlled composition and microstructure. As a result, it has been commonly used for large parts with low complexity and for repairing them, limiting the production of amorphous alloys because of the size limitation”
Paper references:
Point 8: Please replace the Turkish "ve" with the English "and".
Response 8: It has been edited.
Point 9: Please use consistent formatting. Either write out the journals in the sources or abbreviate them.
Response 9: Full journal name has been used in all sources.
Point 10: Doesn't the comma after the respective paper title belong after the » character? E.G.: «Additive manufacturing of magnetic materials»,
Response 10: The sources have been edited.
Point 11: Please remove "%1 içinde" from source 26, 36, 50 and 77.
Response 11: It has been removed from all 4 sources.
Point 12: In source 57, please insert a space between "laser melting" (not: lasermelting).
Response 12: A space has been inserted between “laser melting”.
Point 13: Please include all authors in the sources. These are missing in sources 47 and 48, among others.
Response 13: The sources have been edited.
Paper text:
Point 14: Please remove the commas in line 99.
Response 14: They have been removed.
Point 15: Line 131: The abbreviation "AM" should already be introduced in line 58.
Response 15: The abbreviation "AM" has been introduced in Line 63.
Point 16: Line 161 and line 162: SLM has been (singular).
Response 16: In Line 166, “have” has replaced with “has”. In Line 167, the subject in the sentence is “different materials and applications that exploit SLM”. So the subjet in that sentence is not singular.
Point 17: Lines 236 and 237: 400 mm/s scanning speed is only the optimum for the otherwise used machine parameters. It is not the best speed in general. Please mention this.
Response 17: The sentence has been rewritten as “it can be said that 400 mm/s is the optimum laser scan speed considering the process parameters used in this study to achieve both densification and high amorphous phase fractions for Fe-Si-B alloys.” (Line 241-243).
Point 18: Please remove the semicolon in line 24, 36, 272, 285, 311 and 449.
Response 18: They have been removed from the manuscript.
Point 19: In line 286, the letter "b" was forgotten. “... loose powder by using ...”.
Response 19: It has been added.
Point 20: Line 304 states that all samples in Figure 11 have almost the same properties. However, when looking at Figure 11, sample A has different properties? Accordingly, write in line 304 that all samples except sample A, show almost the same properties.
Response 20: The sentence has been rewritten as “the M-H hysteresis loops (Figure 11) show that the saturation magnetization seems to be the same for all samples except sample A within the margin of error.” (Line 309-311)
Point 21: Please insert a space in line 361 after (a).
Response 21: It has been inserted.
Point 22: Doesn't the "V" in formula 4 have to be written with a lowercase letter? See line 388.
Response 22: It has been written with a lowercase.
Point 23: Line 388: Is the unit "W/mm.K" correct?
Response 23: It has been checked and confirmed to be the correct unit.
Point 24: Line 397: Please use another name for "laser scanning rate" (see rest of document).
Response 24: In the manuscript, laser scan/scanning speed has been used. The term in Line 404 has been changed with “laser scan speed” accordingly.
Point 25: Line 403: Please adjust the formatting of the numbers with spaces 3.38 x 103 and 1.72 x 103 K/s (see line 298).
Response 25: It has been adjusted.
Point 26: Figure 17: Please mention the meaning of the abbreviations Tg, Tx1, Tx2 and Tx3 in the figure caption.
Response 26: The sentence of “(Tg is glass transition temperature and Tx1, Tx2 and Tx3 are crystallization temperatures, showing that the material undergoes three-stage crystallization process upon heating)” has added to the figure caption.
Point 27: Lines 439-441: The sentence is highlighted in yellow. However, it does not contain any changes compared to the first version?
Response 27: The highlight has been removed.
Point 28: Line 446: Please insert space. P = 300 W (not P=300 W). Also applies to the rest of this line.
Response 28: The line has been edited.
Point 29: Lines 456-469: The section is about Table 3, but the section only includes SLM and no mention of LENS? Please also mention the LENS process here.
Response 29: The sentence of “The last three rows in Table 3 represent the Fe-based amorphous materials produced by LENS technique. As stated before, LENS technique has not been studied extensively in fabricating amorphous alloys due to the process related problems. Considering the hardness values of FeCrMoCB alloy produced by SLM [61] and Fe41Co7Cr15Mo14C15B6Y2 (at.%) alloy fabricated by LENS [91], it can be said that LENS provides more mechanical strength than SLM technique.” has been added to the paragraph (Line 478-483).
Point 30: Line 464: Insert space. … [8] possess….
Response 30: A space has been inserted (Line 473).
Point 31: Line 479: The sentence is still technically incorrect. High laser powers and low scanning speeds lead to a high energy input and not to a low one. Please correct this sentence.
Response 31: The sentence has ben rewritten as “low energy input, achieved via low laser power and high laser scanning speed, brings about increased amorphous phase content due to higher cooling rate, but decreases relative density and deteriorates mechanical properties” (Line 488-490).
Point 32: Table 3: Can't you reduce the font size or increase the column width here. This would make the formatting of the table better and more beautiful.
Response 32: The table has been edited.
Please also find attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors have revised their manuscript and provided a comprehensive survey of the literature work related to laser additive manufacturing of iron-based magnetic amorphous alloys.
Only a minor observation in the file. Under the References section, many of the citations are with "ve" before the last author. Please check if that is the format for publication or it is a technical error in the citation tool used.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for noticing it. It has been revised and changed "ve" with "and"throughout the reference section.
