Effects of Compaction Thickness on Density, Integrity, and Microstructure of Green Parts in Binder Jetting Additive Manufacturing of Silicon Carbide

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have presented the work very effectively. There is some information, corrections, and changes that can be considered before publication.

 

 

• The abstract needs to be restructured. The findings of the article need to be addressed.
• What motivated the researcher to work on the binder jetting additive manufacturing process?
• Research gaps need to be addressed properly, and how they addressed the gaps with the research work.
• Literature surveys need to be extended: https://doi.org/10.36922/ijamd.4812,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-024-14824-w,  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50349-8_134; this article could be useful to address the research work.
• Scaling is missing for Figures 3, 4, 5, 7, 8. Please do the necessary corrections.
• The conclusion needs to be rewritten properly.
• There are some typo errors. Correct it before final submission.
• Why is the related error reported (in the error bar) for 45 μm higher than that of 60 μm (Fig. 6)? How does this affect the physiomechanical properties?
• Can authors relate the macrograph with the mechanical properties of the AM materials?
• An overall discussion of the results needs to be added in a subsection in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript discusses a study on using layer compaction to modify the green-body density of BJAM silicon carbide. The experiments and results are well planned out, described, and presented. I suggest the following comments to the authors:

 

1. There are few references, especially given how broad of a field BJAM is. Additionally, many are self-citations which may put the total beyond the self citation limit of the journal. More of the references should focus on studies on green body density/modification in BJAM.
2. The introduction is weak, and doesn't lead into the study very well.
   • The entire third paragraph you reference results of studies which focused on post-green body densification, which isn't relevant to your study given you did no sintering or further densification.
   • The last paragraph is unnecessary, maybe just use the first sentence as the last sentence of the prior paragraph?
   • Later in the manuscript you reference other authors who studied compaction thickness in different ceramics, they should be included in the introduction.
3. The authors share D10/50/90, but not the distribution of powder size. Furthermore, with all of the comparison to other papers in the introduction, it seems important to consider powder morphology. How similar is the powder to those from other studies? How does powder morphology effect compaction behavior? The powder appears roughly bimodal, was the selected on purpose? How did this size distribution vary from other compaction studies on alumina/zirconia?
4. The method for applying the Pt coating (and corresponding equipment) should be given.
5. In the introduction you describe how BJAM is suited for large complex parts, but the study shows that build plate position is arguably more important than compaction thickness as far as green body quality. This is not a bad thing, but should be discussed within the manuscript. What is causing this? You don't have to solve it here, but what are the potential routes forward? Why does this study matter?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be accepted for publication.