Next Article in Journal
Optimizing Mandrel Dimensions for a Fixture Hardening Process of High-Strength Steel Aerospace Parts by Finite Element Simulation
Previous Article in Journal
Reproducibility of High-Throughput Sample Properties Produced by a High-Temperature Molten Metal Droplet Generator
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Dimensional Tolerance of Casting in the Bridgman Furnace Based on 3D Printing Techniques

Metals 2020, 10(3), 299; https://doi.org/10.3390/met10030299
by Xintao Zhu 1,*, Fu Wang 2, Dexin Ma 1 and Andreas Bührig-Polaczek 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Metals 2020, 10(3), 299; https://doi.org/10.3390/met10030299
Submission received: 7 December 2019 / Revised: 25 December 2019 / Accepted: 4 February 2020 / Published: 25 February 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article deals with additive manufacturing (3D printing) in order to produce ceramic molds for investment casting techniques. The use of 3D printed parts instead of wax is investigated. The authors point out the fact that there is a lack of theoretical foudation for this technique and that it is thus difficult to assess the industrial reliability of this technique. In order to improve the knowledge in the field of 3D printing for this particular application of metal molding through investment casting, the authors propose to compare two different 3D printing techniques and different materials. The comparison of the expected theoretical dimensions and the experimental dimensions measured on specifically designed pieces allows the determination of the grade of tolerance of the different solutions. The results show that some techniques should be preferred to others.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The article in its present form can not be accepted for publication because many questions relative to the experiment plan and on the results remain. The authors should rewrite the entire article to make it clearer and better justify the experimental choices they made. They also should answer the different questions and remarks listed below to improve the article.

A key point is to justify the work presented by taking into account the scientific context and using previous results from the literature. The authors cite many bibliograhic references but neve cite any of them. If they are not cited, they are useless in the references.

However, the results may be interesting but should be better presented.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Please, in the future, could the authors make use of line numbering ? Easier for the reviewer.
- Please, use page numbering.
- The article comprises 47 bibliographical references and none of them is cited in the text. The references should be clearly used to justify the study or compare the results or the methods to other related works in the field of investigation. The authors should revise the entire document in order to check for the useful references and remove those which are not relevant, and include citation in the text.
- Introduction : could the authors cite references about 3D printing of wax molds ?

- figure 4 : add the temperature scale.
- figure 4 and 5 : the reader can understand that figure 4 is on the left and fgure 5 is on the right, but the authors should be clearer about this (same remark for figures 6 & 7)
- Table 1 : fluidity ? How is it defined ? Can it be measured ? Can a value of a physical parameter be given ? Same question for weldablity or coating performance ? It seems to me that the authors mix physical parameters and techological parameters. Could the authors make a difference between them and give values for the physical parameters instead of subjective criteria ?
- "The paint formulation, drying time, relative humidity and ambient wind speed were strictly controlled in the experiment" : could the authors give more information about these parameters ? As they were stricly controlled, it should be easy to give their values.
- Figure 8 : please improve the quality of the pictures.
- Table 2 : error in "Value at 5s min" (third column)
- Table 2 : Flexural modulus ???
- List of advantages below Fig 14: The authors should use simpler marks for the items (not a spiral).
- paragraph above Tab 3: replace "EC500 if the material what we used" by "EC500 if the material THAT we used"
- paragraph above Tab 3: "dramatically improved"... why 'dramatically' if this is improved ? Change the adverb into a more positive adverb.
- figure 17 : "different 3D printing methodS"
- paragraph below fig 17 : replace "was carried out to analysis" by "was carried out to analyze"
- Table 5 : title "Composition of THE back slurry"
- Table 7 : the authors should explain the experiment plan and the tested parameters. What do the authors expect to compare by following this experiment plan ? What is the difference between the 2D-C-column base and the 2D-C-square base, the 3D-column base, the 2D-Z square base...? Why this difference between the shapes ? Is the shape a relevant parameter in this study ? How can the shape influence the results ? The authors should justify this point maybe by citing references from the literature.
- figure 25 : the authors should add the identification number of the specimens in the figure according to the numbers defined in table 7.
- paragraph above fig 25 : How many measurements are done for the diameter of the column and of the spiral ? Is it the mean value of several measurements at the same height ? The authors should indicate the measurement procedure. Is the cross section really a disk ?
- paragraph above fig 25 : same remark for the square base. Is the measured value the mean value between four measurements (each side of a square) ? Is the cross section really a square ?
- table 8 : what is the unit of the grade of tolerance ? What about the unit of the size of casting?
- paragraph below table 8 : how is the roughness measured ?
- results in the tables : Why restarting the numering of the tables ?
- results in table 1 : What does phi13.60 means ??? R14.75 ??? Do the numbers in the tables correspond to the numbers defined in table 7 ? The nomenclature is not clear neither the meaning of R and phi.
- fig 26 : the authors should make clearer the nomenclature. Sometimes, 1, 2 3 and 4 seems to be the numbering of the casted parts (EGR joints, nail, sewing machine...) and sometimes seems to be related to the numbers in table 7.
- Grade of tolerance in the tables : I do not understand how to determine the grade of tolerance frome your measurements. Please explain better. Maybe it is due to the fact that the authors omitted the units in table 8.
- paragraph below table 8 : Why is the size of the print model multiplied by 101.3% ? How do the authors justify this ?
- results in table 1 to 8 : what is measured on the complex casted parts ? The authors did not give this information.
- Title "Analysis of Dimensional Accuracy of Casted Grain Selectors" is not well formatted.
- Number formatting : use point (.) instead of coma (,).
- paragraph below table 3.16 : "resin material expad more serious"... I do not understand the sentence.
- Title "Comparison of 3D Printed Patterns and Castings" is not well formatted.
- First figure in the section "Analysis of surface roughness of casted parts" (figure 27 ???) : figure number ? Title ? Label of the axes ? Units ?
- Last figure (figure 28 ???) : the authors should add the number, the title, the labels of the axes and the units.
- Summary and Outlook : the authors should pay attention to the english writing, in particular in this section, but also in the entire document.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: Please, use page numbering.

Response 1: The article has been page-numbered.

Point 2: The article comprises 47 bibliographical references and none of them is cited in the text. The references should be clearly used to justify the study or compare the results or the methods to other related works in the field of investigation. The authors should revise the entire document in order to check for the useful references and remove those which are not relevant, and include citation in the text.

Response 2: All the bibliographical references have been cited.

Point 3: Figure 4 : add the temperature scale.

Response 3: The temperature scale has been added in Figure 4.

Point 4: Figure 4 and 5 : the reader can understand that figure 4 is on the left and Figure 5 is on the right, but the authors should be clearer about this (same remark for Figures 6 & 7)

Response 4: The Figure 4 and 5 have been adjusted (same for Figures 6 & 7).

Point 5: Figure 8 : please improve the quality of the pictures.

Response 5: Figure 8 has been adjusted for a high quality picture.

Point 6: Table 2 : error in "Value at 5s min" (third column).

Response 6: The error has been corrected to “Value at 5 min”.

Point 7: List of advantages below Fig 14: The authors should use simpler marks for the items (not a spiral).

Response 7: The list of advantages have been formatted.

Point 8: Paragraph above Tab 3: replace "EC500 if the material what we used" by "EC500 if the material THAT we used"

Response 8: The sentence has been changed to “EC500 if the material THAT we used”.

Point 9: Paragraph above Tab 3: "dramatically improved"... why 'dramatically' if this is improved ? Change the adverb into a more positive adverb?

Response 9: The word “dramatically” has been replaced by \.

Point 10: Figure 17 : "different 3D printing methodS".

Response 10: Different 3D printing methods.

Point 11: Paragraph below fig 17 : replace "was carried out to analysis" by "was carried out to analyze"

Response 11: The word “analysis” has been changed to “analyze”.

Point 12: Figure 25 : the authors should add the identification number of the specimens in the figure according to the numbers defined in table 7.

Response 12: The identification number of the specimens has been added.

Point 13: Results in the tables : Why restarting the numbering of the tables?

Response 13: The number of the tables has been adjusted.

Point 14: Title "Analysis of Dimensional Accuracy of Casted Grain Selectors" is not well formatted.

Response 14: The title has been well formatted.

Point 15: Number formatting : use point (.) instead of coma (,)

Response 15: The number format has been adjusted.

Point 16: Paragraph below table 3.16 : "resin material expad more serious"... I do not understand the sentence.

Response 16: It has been changed to “resin material EXPANDS more serious”.

Point 17: Title "Comparison of 3D Printed Patterns and Castings" is not well formatted.

Response 17: The title has been well formatted.

Point 18: First figure in the section "Analysis of surface roughness of casted parts" (figure 27 ???) : figure number ? Title ? Label of the axes ? Units ?.

Response 18: The figure 27 has been numbered.

Point 19: Last figure (figure 28 ???) : the authors should add the number, the title, the labels of the axes and the units

Response 19: The figure 28 has been numbered.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript demonstrate that 3D printing technique can be successfully used to manufacture the automative parts and the grain selector parts. The authors claim that this can serve a reference for the 3D printing based-development of wax mold production in the future.

The manuscript carries too many figures and tables. It is strongly suggested that the authors include necessary figures and data sets and combine some of the figures and tables together in a concise manner so that the readers can easily capture the big picture. 

The manuscript is missing the sources of the materials used. For the readers to produce reproducible results based on the given information, please include the sources of the materials and equipment used.

How many pieces of each prototype did the authors print? Have the authors assessed the reproducibility (consistency), e.g., weight, height, diameter etc?

There is an inconsistency issue with the tables to be fixed: e.g., capital letters vs. small letters. The order of tables (numbering) is also incorrect.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: The manuscript carries too many figures and tables. It is strongly suggested that the authors include necessary figures and data sets and combine some of the figures and tables together in a concise manner so that the readers can easily capture the big picture. 

Response 1: The number of figures has been adjusted. 

Point 2: The manuscript is missing the sources of the materials used. For the readers to produce reproducible results based on the given information, please include the sources of the materials and equipment used.

Response 2: The article has been rearranged.

Point 3: There is an inconsistency issue with the tables to be fixed: e.g., capital letters vs. small letters. The order of tables (numbering) is also incorrect.

Response 3: The order of the tables has been corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is well conceived, well researched, and well developed. No further modification is necessary for publication. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised article is not really a revised article as the authors only changed the format of the article without taking into account the reviewers' remarks relative to the experiment plan, the presentation of the many results (tables and charts) and the justification of this work by relevant literature references. The changes have been made a minima and the addition of the references in the introduction was not made seriously.
The article in its present form is then rejected and I ask the authors to revise drastically their article before they resubmit it for a new review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE REMARKS LISTED ABOVE RECEIVED NO ANSWER FROM THE AUTHORS, WHO ONLY TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE REMARKS RELATIVE TO THE FORMATTING OF THE ARTICLE. THE FOLLOWING REMARKS ARE IMPORTANT AND SHOULD RECEIVE ANSWERS !
- Please, in the future, could the authors make use of line numbering ? Easier for the reviewer.
- Table 1 : fluidity ? How is it defined ? Can it be measured ? Can a value of a physical parameter be given ? Same question for weldablity or coating performance ? It seems to me that the authors mix physical parameters and techological parameters. Could the authors make a difference between them and give values for the physical parameters instead of subjective criteria ?
- "The paint formulation, drying time, relative humidity and ambient wind speed were strictly controlled in the experiment" : could the authors give more information about these parameters ? As they were stricly controlled, it should be easy to give their values.
- Table 7 : the authors should explain the experiment plan and the tested parameters. What do the authors expect to compare by following this experiment plan ? What is the difference between the 2D-C-column base and the 2D-C-square base, the 3D-column base, the 2D-Z square base...? Why this difference between the shapes ? Is the shape a relevant parameter in this study ? How can the shape influence the results ? The authors should justify this point maybe by citing references from the literature.
- paragraph above fig 25 : How many measurements are done for the diameter of the column and of the spiral ? Is it the mean value of several measurements at the same height ? The authors should indicate the measurement procedure. Is the cross section really a disk ?
- paragraph above fig 25 : same remark for the square base. Is the measured value the mean value between four measurements (each side of a square) ? Is the cross section really a square ?
- table 8 : what is the unit of the grade of tolerance ? What about the unit of the size of casting?
- paragraph below table 8 : how is the roughness measured ?
- results in table 1 : What does phi13.60 means ??? R14.75 ??? Do the numbers in the tables correspond to the numbers defined in table 7 ? The nomenclature is not clear neither the meaning of R and phi.
- fig 26 : the authors should make clearer the nomenclature. Sometimes, 1, 2 3 and 4 seems to be the numbering of the casted parts (EGR joints, nail, sewing machine...) and sometimes seems to be related to the numbers in table 7.
- Grade of tolerance in the tables : I do not understand how to determine the grade of tolerance frome your measurements. Please explain better. Maybe it is due to the fact that the authors omitted the units in table 8.
- paragraph below table 8 : Why is the size of the print model multiplied by 101.3% ? How do the authors justify this ?
- results in table 1 to 8 : what is measured on the complex casted parts ? The authors did not give this information.
- paragraph below table 3.16 : "resin material expands more serious"... I do not understand the sentence.
- Summary and Outlook : the authors should pay attention to the english writing, in particular in this section, but also in the entire document.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Introduction : "Abroad the research in this field has accumulated many years of experience and gradually spread to commercial applications..[10-16]" ... references [10-16] not relevant for 3D printing applications. Reconsider citations.
- There is a reference between ref. 17 and ref. 18, that does not appear in the list !
- Introduction : "However, the lack of theoretical foundation limits the application of this technology in enterprises, so it is necessary to obtain more experience and innovation from the level of basic research, and then to promote its application in enterprise production..[17-22]" : if this sentence deals with 3D printing, the references are badly choosen. Reconsider citations. The cited articles deal with directional solidification of alloys. I do not understand the reason of such a citation here.
- Introduction : "The method of manufacturing wax mold in traditional investment casting(Non-directional solidification) and single crystal casting(Directional solidification) are both studied and improved..[27-33]" : the references [27-33] do not deal with the manufacturing of wax molds.
- Introduction : "The application of 3D printing technology in traditional casting was tested because of its shorter period and less cost, and it found the optimal 3D printing materials meeting the requirements of traditional casting (thermal cracking performance, dimensional tolerance).).[34,35]" : the references 34 and 35 do not deal with 3D printing !
- Introduction : "Through the final optimal material applying to DS (single crystal casting), and then compared with several other 3D printing samples, finally a 3D printing material suitable for both traditional casting and directional solidification was found..[36-42]" : the references [36-42] do not deal with 3D printing !!!
- Introduction : "This paper has successfully designed and manufactured the automotive parts and the grain selector parts which can be used in production, which provides reference for the development of the new technology of wax mold production in the future..[43-47]" : references [43-47] not relevant !!!
- The references should be choosen by respect with their relevance with the studied domain (wax molding and 3D printing).
- It seems to me that the cited reference have been randomly added into the introduction without paying attention to their relevance according to the sentences into which they have been added. This is not SERIOUS and the authors should really revise carefully the use of the cited references. The references MUST justify the work and the results by replacing them into their context. This is not the cas here.
- Morevoer, there are too many references, some of them are old and should be replaced by newer ones. Some reference are really redundant and the authors should choose the most relevant of them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: Please, in the future, could the authors make use of line numbering ? Easier for the reviewer.

Response 1: The article has been line-numbered.

Point 2: Table 1 : fluidity ? How is it defined ? Can it be measured ? Can a value of a physical parameter be given ? Same question for weldablity or coating performance ? It seems to me that the authors mix physical parameters and techological parameters. Could the authors make a difference between them and give values for the physical parameters instead of subjective criteria ?

Response 2: Fluidity means the property of flowing easily and a changeable quality of the metals applied in the experiments.

Point 3: "The paint formulation, drying time, relative humidity and ambient wind speed were strictly controlled in the experiment" : could the authors give more information about these parameters ? As they were stricly controlled, it should be easy to give their values.

Response 3: The values involved in the experiment process is relative and hard to give a precise one.

Point 4: Table 7 : the authors should explain the experiment plan and the tested parameters. What do the authors expect to compare by following this experiment plan ? What is the difference between the 2D-C-column base and the 2D-C-square base, the 3D-column base, the 2D-Z square base...? Why this difference between the shapes ? Is the shape a relevant parameter in this study ? How can the shape influence the results ? The authors should justify this point maybe by citing references from the literature.

Response 4: The experiment plan and the tested parameters have been explained in the former study in the reference.

Point 5: paragraph above fig 25 : How many measurements are done for the diameter of the column and of the spiral ? Is it the mean value of several measurements at the same height ? The authors should indicate the measurement procedure. Is the cross section really a disk ?

Response 5: The value is the several measurements at the same height and the cross section is a disk.

Point 6: paragraph above fig 25 : same remark for the square base. Is the measured value the mean value between four measurements (each side of a square) ? Is the cross section really a square ?

Response 6: Yes, it is the same answer as the response 5 and the cross section is a square.

Point 7: table 8 : what is the unit of the grade of tolerance? What about the unit of the size of casting?

Response 7: The unit of the grade of tolerance is hard to describe and the unit of the size of casting is millimeter.

Point 8: paragraph below table 8 : how is the roughness measured ?

Response 8: The roughness is measured by EBSD method.

Point 9: results in table 1 : What does phi13.60 means ??? R14.75 ??? Do the numbers in the tables correspond to the numbers defined in table 7 ? The nomenclature is not clear neither the meaning of R and phi.

Response 9: The numbers in the tables are correspond to the numbers defined in table 7.

Point 10: fig 26 : the authors should make clearer the nomenclature. Sometimes, 1, 2 3 and 4 seems to be the numbering of the casted parts (EGR joints, nail, sewing machine...) and sometimes seems to be related to the numbers in table 7.

Response 10: The numbering of 1,2,3 and 4 in the article have been named clearly.

Point 11: Grade of tolerance in the tables : I do not understand how to determine the grade of tolerance frome your measurements. Please explain better. Maybe it is due to the fact that the authors omitted the units in table 8.

Response 11: The units in table 8 have been explained.

Point 12: paragraph below table 8 : Why is the size of the print model multiplied by 101.3% ? How do the authors justify this ?

Response 12: The size of the print model multiplied by 101.3% according to the former studies in the reference.

Point 13: results in table 1 to 8 : what is measured on the complex casted parts ? The authors did not give this information.

Response 13: The size of the complex casted parts is measured.

Point 14: paragraph below table 3.16 : "resin material expands more serious"... I do not understand the sentence.

Response 14: The resin material expands more serious (on the size) because of the different material.

Point 15: Summary and Outlook : the authors should pay attention to the english writing, in particular in this section, but also in the entire document.

Response 15: The writing of the article has been improved.

Point 16: Introduction : "Abroad the research in this field has accumulated many years of experience and gradually spread to commercial applications..[10-16]" ... references [10-16] not relevant for 3D printing applications. Reconsider citations.

Response 16: Abroad the research in this field has accumulated many years of experience and gradually spread to commercial applications..[10-14].

Point 17: There is a reference between ref. 17 and ref. 18, that does not appear in the list !

Response 17: The new reference is [14] Hugo.F, Betz.U, Ren.J, Huang. S.-C, Bondarenko. J.A and Gerasimov. V., in International Symposiumon on Liquid Metal Processing and Casting, ed. by A. Mitchell, L. Ridgway, and M. Baldwin( AVS, New York, 1999), 16–30.

Point 18: Introduction : "The method of manufacturing wax mold in traditional investment casting(Non-directional solidification) and single crystal casting(Directional solidification) are both studied and improved..[27-33]" : the references [27-33] do not deal with the manufacturing of wax molds.

Response 18: The method of manufacturing wax mold in traditional investment casting(Non-directional solidification) and single crystal casting(Directional solidification) are both studied and improved..[23-27].

Point 19: Introduction : "The application of 3D printing technology in traditional casting was tested because of its shorter period and less cost, and it found the optimal 3D printing materials meeting the requirements of traditional casting (thermal cracking performance, dimensional tolerance).).[34,35]" : the references 34 and 35 do not deal with 3D printing !

Response 19: The application of 3D printing technology in traditional casting was tested because of its shorter period and less cost, and it found the optimal 3D printing materials meeting the requirements of traditional casting (thermal cracking performance, dimensional tolerance).).[28,29].

Point 20: Introduction : "Through the final optimal material applying to DS (single crystal casting), and then compared with several other 3D printing samples, finally a 3D printing material suitable for both traditional casting and directional solidification was found..[36-42]" : the references [36-42] do not deal with 3D printing !!!

Response 20: Through the final optimal material applying to DS (single crystal casting), and then compared with several other 3D printing samples, finally a 3D printing material suitable for both traditional casting and directional solidification was found..[30-33].

Point 21: Introduction : "This paper has successfully designed and manufactured the automotive parts and the grain selector parts which can be used in production, which provides reference for the development of the new technology of wax mold production in the future..[43-47]" : references [43-47] not relevant !!!

Response 21 This paper has successfully designed and manufactured the automotive parts and the grain selector parts which can be used in production, which provides reference for the development of the new technology of wax mold production in the future..[34].

Point 22: Introduction : "However, the lack of theoretical foundation limits the application of this technology in enterprises, so it is necessary to obtain more experience and innovation from the level of basic research, and then to promote its application in enterprise production..[17-22]" : if this sentence deals with 3D printing, the references are badly choosen. Reconsider citations. The cited articles deal with directional solidification of alloys. I do not understand the reason of such a citation here.

Response 22 However, the lack of theoretical foundation limits the application of this technology in enterprises, so it is necessary to obtain more experience and innovation from the level of basic research, and then to promote its application in enterprise production..[15-18].

Point 23: The references should be choosen by respect with their relevance with the studied domain (wax molding and 3D printing).

Response 23: The reference has been chosen related to wax molding and 3D printing.

Point 24: It seems to me that the cited reference have been randomly added into the introduction without paying attention to their relevance according to the sentences into which they have been added. This is not SERIOUS and the authors should really revise carefully the use of the cited references. The references MUST justify the work and the results by replacing them into their context. This is not the cas here.

Response 24 The reference has been cited relatively.

Point 25: Morevoer, there are too many references, some of them are old and should be replaced by newer ones. Some reference are really redundant and the authors should choose the most relevant of them.

Response 25: The number of the reference in article has been reduced to 34 and all the references are published after 1990s.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made notable changes to improve.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1: The authors made notable changes to improve.

Response 1: The writing of the article has been improved.

Back to TopTop