Additively Manufactured Multifunctional Composite Parts with the Help of Coextrusion Continuous Carbon Fiber: Study of Feasibility to Print Self-Sensing without Doped Raw Material

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the topic is very interesting and fall in the mega trend of the state of the art, the paper is poor in terms of developments and few materials are presented. The novelty is minimal and the work is not well structured. Many trivial statements and concise discussions.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their comments. This helped us to improve the quality of the paper. The answers are available in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic studied by the authors is interesting and useful. However, their presentation is rather indirect and partially fuzzy. The authors should present plain enough

·      what they want to study;

·      which references are significant, not introduce the marginal references;

·      to complete references at some points where their usage is inevitable (ll. 77, 82, 190, 370);

·      to unify the abbreviations (l. 39 vs l. 101 vs. l.438);

·      l. 208 – only the abbreviation used;

·      Fig. 3 – Is not the text preceding Fig. 3 sufficient? Fig. 3 seems to be redundant.

·      ll. 205-212 – Instead of what will not be studied to introduce what will be studied.

·      l. 220 and onwards – the manufacturers are not introduced, also characterization of the used materials is insufficient;

·      Fig. 8 – Why the ordinate and abscissa are not terminated at 4 and 25, respectively?

·      Figs. 8 and 9 – Notation differs from that used in Table 1.

·      l. 302 – How responsible is the last figure in the introduced numbers?

·      ll. 312-313 – Why? It should be explained.

·      A number of experimental repetitions are missing.

·      ll. 391-406 – The notation W210x_R is nowhere explained.

 Conclusion: The manuscript is not well arranged, the aim should be addressed more directly, a number of statements should be supported by new references, some references should be considered from the viewpoint of their redundancy, the experiments should not be only described according to the presented measurements but also substantiated on the physical grounds.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their comments. This helped us to improve the quality of the paper. The answers are available in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The current manuscript studies the feasibility of 3d printing of multifunctional composite materials using coextrusion of continuous  carbon fiber. The title is attractive and recommended for publication. However, there are some issues to be considered as follows:

- The abstract should be revised and formulated in one homogeneous paragraph without the numbering separations.

- The introduction should include a critical review for different extrusion structures according to the literature, in addition to, applying the u and v zigzag shapes during processing. 

- The missing processing FDM parameters should be added such as nozzle temperature and wire diameter, and the feed rate.

- The coextrusion structure setup should be described in more detail. 

- Number of the printed samples for each parameters group is required, in addition to including measurement repeatability and standard deviation. 

- The presented results should be justified and validated experimentally and according to more discussion form the literature efforts.

- The conclusion should be concise and focused on the main results, contributions, and novelty of the current work. A bullet points style is highly recommended.    

conclusion

Moderate change is required. 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their comments. This helped us to improve the quality of the paper. The answers are available in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Good clarification and explanation are provided in the version of the paper

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their comments. This helped us to improve the quality of the paper. The answers are available in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The changes made by the authors are prevailingly only cosmetic. Their contribution was not restructured and presented in more acceptable form. Many points from the preceding review that can be easily improved still persist:

·      to complete references at some points where their usage is inevitable (ll. 74, 79, 83, etc.);

·      only the abbreviations used (PLA, etc.);

·      the manufacturers are not introduced;

·      characterization of the used materials is insufficient;

·      A number of experimental repetitions are missing.

·      Refs. [16-19]?

·      etc.

 Conclusion: The manuscript is not well arranged, used English should be substantially improved for better understanding. The classical way how to write manuscripts is missed.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their comments. This helped us to improve the quality of the paper. The answers are available in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised manuscript is improved, most of the review comments and recommendations are well addressed. However, there are some minor issues should be considered as follows:

- The results section needs more discussion and adding of references to justify the obtained results and analysis. It is recommended to change this section title to "Results and discussion"

- The limitations and direct applications of applying the proposed technique should be illustrated.

- The conclusion section should be carefully revised to be concise and focused on main results, contributions, and novelty.

Moderate change is still required.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their comments. This helped us to improve the quality of the paper. The answers are available in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors improved their manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised manuscript is improved. The review comments and recommendations are well addressed.

Moderate change is still required.