Advanced Manufacturability of Electrical Machine Architecture through 3D Printing Technology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Review Committee,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you and the reviewers for dedicating time and effort to evaluate our manuscript. We are pleased to learn that the reviewers recognize the significance of this work. We genuinely appreciate their constructive feedback, which has provided us with valuable insights to enhance the quality of our research. Your recognition of these aspects motivates us to continue exploring cutting-edge technologies to enhance motor performance.
In response to your suggestions, we have addressed the reviewers concerns, and we have carefully reviewed the literature to ensure that we cover relevant work. We also made necessary improvements to our manuscript. The reviewers’ original comments are listed in the attached files followed by our response to each comment.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the review titled “Advanced Manufacturability of Electrical Machine Architecture through 3D Printing Technology,” the author did a good job highlighting the use of AM as a powerful tool to achieve a high degree of design freedom in rotor design, stator design, coil design, winding, thermal management, and housing for electric vehicles.
1. Can the author include more references? The author has claimed a lot of advantages AM has, which require references. This also gives the readers more options if they want to read more for knowledge.
2. After section 4, the subsections are still written as 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 so on.
3. The author can include a future scope section highlighting the following but not limited to:
a. One big limitation of metal AM is the availability of printable materials. How does this affect the future of AM in electrical machine manufacturing? What steps can be taken to overcome this limitation?
b. Many of the metal AM processes require post-processing steps and depending on the material, the density of the manufactured part varies a lot. How does this affect the performance of the manufactured device?
c. How do the print parameters, such as the print speed, print resolution, print strategy, or the print bed position affect the build of these components?
d. Thoughts on outer space manufacturing of these components?
A future scope section can help highlight the research gap found at present and can help the readers in providing future research scope.
Author Response
Dear Review Committee,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you and the reviewers for dedicating time and effort to evaluate our manuscript. We are pleased to learn that the reviewers recognize the significance of this work. We genuinely appreciate their constructive feedback, which has provided us with valuable insights to enhance the quality of our research. Your recognition of these aspects motivates us to continue exploring cutting-edge technologies to enhance motor performance.
In response to your suggestions, we have addressed the reviewers concerns, and we have carefully reviewed the literature to ensure that we cover relevant work. We also made necessary improvements to our manuscript. The reviewers’ original comments are listed in the attached files followed by our response to each comment.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The review content of this article is not detailed in the abstract, please modify it.
2. The last paragraph of the introduction should emphasize that the summary of the existing AM techniques and the main objectives of the research work will need to be revised.
3. Figure 1 is not clear, many words can not see clearly, please modify according to the submission requirements.
4. Please state the author's contributions separately and do not mix them together.
Author Response
Dear Review Committee,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you and the reviewers for dedicating time and effort to evaluate our manuscript. We are pleased to learn that the reviewers recognize the significance of this work. We genuinely appreciate their constructive feedback, which has provided us with valuable insights to enhance the quality of our research. Your recognition of these aspects motivates us to continue exploring cutting-edge technologies to enhance motor performance.
In response to your suggestions, we have addressed the reviewers concerns, and we have carefully reviewed the literature to ensure that we cover relevant work. We also made necessary improvements to our manuscript. The reviewers’ original comments are listed in the attached files followed by our response to each comment.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors provided a detailed review of the additive manufactured Electrical Machines and its types. The following points need to be considered:
1. Authors explained the various AM techniques used, but it should be more detailed with a clear explanation on the process parameters and post processing treatments.
2. The authors need to explain about the development of magnetic materials with a mechanism influenced.
3. A brief explanation on the properties of the AM based electrical machines needs to be highlighted.
4. A table needs to be included on types of AM technique, materials, parts or components and post processing treatment with proper citations.
5. Need to include 10 more recent references.
6. Avoid short sentences and typographical errors.
7. A grammar check is required.
Author Response
Dear Review Committee,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you and the reviewers for dedicating time and effort to evaluate our manuscript. We are pleased to learn that the reviewers recognize the significance of this work. We genuinely appreciate their constructive feedback, which has provided us with valuable insights to enhance the quality of our research. Your recognition of these aspects motivates us to continue exploring cutting-edge technologies to enhance motor performance.
In response to your suggestions, we have addressed the reviewers concerns, and we have carefully reviewed the literature to ensure that we cover relevant work. We also made necessary improvements to our manuscript. The reviewers’ original comments are listed in the attached files followed by our response to each comment.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The presented paper explores the additive manufacturing of metal components for electric machines. The text provides a clear and well-reasoned discussion of the latest advancements in the field, focusing on magnetic materials, windings, and thermal management. The language is accessible, complemented by informative illustrations. The misplacement of Section 4 within Section 3 is a noticeable oversight that requires correction. Overall, the article unfolds the potential of additive technologies in reshaping electric machines, warranting attention within the realm of scholarly research. It is recommended for publication, albeit with minor formatting adjustments.
Author Response
Dear Review Committee,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you and the reviewers for dedicating time and effort to evaluate our manuscript. We are pleased to learn that the reviewers recognize the significance of this work. We genuinely appreciate their constructive feedback, which has provided us with valuable insights to enhance the quality of our research. Your recognition of these aspects motivates us to continue exploring cutting-edge technologies to enhance motor performance.
In response to your suggestions, we have addressed the reviewers concerns, and we have carefully reviewed the literature to ensure that we cover relevant work. We also made necessary improvements to our manuscript. The reviewers’ original comments are listed in the attached files followed by our response to each comment.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
1) There is no noticeable improvement in the abstract. The abstract required further revisions.
2) I don’t see any noticeable improvement in section 3.4 other than updating the section title.
3) To categorize additive manufacturing techniques, follow ASTM 52900
4) Please include information from the response to Comment 10 (Revision 1) in the introduction section.
Author Response
The reviewers’ original comments are listed in the attached files followed by our response to each comment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The author has done a good job in revising the review article. I see that the author has edited Figure 1 for more legibility, maybe it can be made verticle for better clarity. It looks fine, but I think it can be made better. Figure 2,3,4, and 5 required appropriate citations if the figures were acquired from other publications.
Author Response
The reviewers’ original comments are listed in the attached files followed by our response to each comment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
