A Review of Additive Manufacturing of Soft Magnetic Materials in Electrical Machines

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting paper. It discusses the fabrication of soft magnetic materials by AM techniques and presents the magnetic properties of materials so produced. The discussion of the fabrication techniques is a very large, complex task and might well be put into a different article.  In any case it would be good to have more discussion of the application of the AM materials and perhaps a comparison with magnetic properties of conventional materials.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks for your suggestions we upload an updated version of the manuscript following all the remarks pointed out, all the changes are highlighted in a different test color.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this article, the editors review articles by others dealing with soft magnetic materials used in Ems applications. The content was selected by the authors and  that is acceptable.

My major claim is the article form and format. It is impossible to an outsider reader to read and to understand it, thus only profetionals can get some benefit from it. Too many abbreviations or acronyms (I counnted more than 30), thus  a special dictionary is needed to understand the article and/or the figuers.

Dome specific comments:

Line 81. What is H13?

Line 127. What is CAD?CAM ??

Figs 6-8 are not clear enough. A short text to explain them is needed.

Line 270.  ESBD or SEM (see caption to Fig. 10 etc)

Line 184. What are B10 and B50 (see also line 367 MU10)

Fig. 9 is not mentioned in the text.

Line 226.  Silicon (not Silicon).

FeSi is assigned also as Fe-Si. Use one notation.

Line 481 Fe-6Si but FeSi4 in line 486

Caption to Fig 16-printed

W/kg in Fig. 19 is not defined

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks for your suggestions we upload an updated version of the manuscript following all the remarks pointed out, all the changes are highlighted in a different test color.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors present a review about the additive manufacturing technique for Electrical machines. In particular, they describe some recent researches on the magnetic cores.

This work is interesting and useful but some issues have to be addressed

- Page 2, lines 48-51, these sentences are not clear, in particular is not clear how the increment from 92 to 94% is achievable by the 25% reduction for machine energy losses. This is included in [5], but the authors have to describe in brief this statement.

- Page 5, line 138, “Powder” instead “Power”

- The figure 9 is not cited in the text.

- Page 10 lines 356-357, and page 11 lines 358-362: these sentences are not clear and the figure 13 is not sufficiently discussed. Is not clear the sentence about the comparison of power losses per weith and power losses per volume.

- Page 12 line 376, the authors state “larger grains cause eddy losses to increase”, this phenomenon has to be discussed and justified.

- Page 13 line 402, “the” instead “th”.

- The equation (2) indicated in the paper [21] is an approximation, the authors have to cite also the Steinmetz paper where the original and the effective model is reported (C. Steinmetz, “On the law of hysteresis,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 197–221, 1984.)

- Page 16 line 504, the authors cite thee paper [24], it seems to be a typo, that paper not show quasi static measurement of printed material.

- Table 1: is not clear what refer “literature”, is it about papers concerning additive manufactured samples or traditional laminated cores ? However, the coercivity is indicated by a single value (16 A/m), from a literature analysis a range of values is expected.

- Page 18 lines 532-539: these sentences are not clear, what mean “it is  interesting to notice that the trend assumed by the as built component is the opposite that the one generated …..” the trend versus what ?

- Page 18 line 554-555 and page 19 lines 556-557, seems to be a confusion between the grain size and boron particle size.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks for your suggestions we upload an updated version of the manuscript following all the remarks pointed out, all the changes are highlighted in a different test color.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

at line 114 correct Am to AM