Studies of Post-Fabrication Heat Treatment of L-PBF-Inconel 718: Effects of Hold Time on Microstructure, Annealing Twins, and Hardness
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The description of the introduction includes the purpose of the research, which has not been implemented or has not been properly demonstrated. Quote "The aim of this study is thus to investigate if longer hold times of ST at 1100 ° C will result in complete recrystallization while maintaining the strength of L-PBF-fabricated Inconel 718 or not." In the description, there are no strength results for Inconel 718, so this purpose cannot be clearly verified.
It is suggested to formulate conclusions based on the conducted research in such a way that the references contained therein (e.g. based on other studies) clearly show that the strength has been maintained or has changed. It is also recommended to carry out strength tests, the results of which will give an answer for such a purpose.
2. The description lacks a reference or explanation on which the basis for determining or establishing the parameters of additive manufacturing.
It is suggested to provide information on how the values ​​of individual production parameters were determined.
3. Some doubts are raised by the hardness test graph in the presented form, as its interpretation is difficult.
It would be clearer to provide additionally the hardness value after a given treatment, and not the value by how much hardness has increased.
Additional note:
References of the form: "As shown above, the Laves phase is not a desirable ..." is inappropriate for the publication. It should be clarified, e.g .: As shown in Fig. 1. the Laves phase ... .
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your important comments. I have enclosed our response in the pdf file.
Sincerely,
Wakshum Mekonnen
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well-written and it presents a significant value for both science and industrial applications. I have no major objections to this investigation: it is coherent and logical. Some minor issues, which fixing can improve the paper, have been marked in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your important comments. I have enclosed our response in the pdf file.
Sincerely,
Wakshum Mekonnen
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper present a very hot topic. Despite the valuable information presented in the presentation style is very poor and lead to confusion. I suggest to carefully reconsider it.
Other suggestion are listed below
From abstract aim seems that you suggest it was investigated if longer hold time of ST at 1100 °C will lead to complete recrystallization. However as a brief results you suggest that hardness increases by 43–49%...so what about recrystallization ? and do you consider the hardness as a measure of maintaining stringy ?>
Fist paragraph of introductions seems to long and presents some things well-known
Difficult to understand which is the challenge from you introduction !
Fig 1a is backscattered image not simple SEM image
Overall the introduction is very brief
I belive you want to say here “SEM consisted of mechanical grinding, fine polishing and ultra-polishing with OP-S colloidal silica” this was the method for EBSD sample preparation!!! I suggest to provide actually details of the process cause like that is difficult to replicate and the Inconel is quite challenging for EBSD preparation
You have to discuss Fig 2 for all caption now is only briefly presented as Fig 2
The results presentation is very vague at one point after Figure 3 you say Figure 1-8….please take tehm in order
At some point you indicate the 3h is the best time and in other statement you said “the 3 h hold time at 1100 °C of ST is not long enough to eliminate the entire subgrains.” Please be consistent
“The dramatic increment of the twin density is rather caused by recrystallization than the hold time.” OK, but the recrystallization is driven by the hold time…so this is very confusing
X-Ray diffractograms in Fig 9 do not present what each peak represent
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your important comments. I have enclosed our response in the pdf file.
Sincerely,
Wakshum Mekonnen
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After reading the authors' responses, I accept the article with the proposed changes.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you
