Effect of Thermal Cycling on Grain Evolution and Micro-Segregation in Selective Laser Melting of FGH96 Superalloy
, Shijin Nie 1,2,3, Qin Wang 1,2,3, Rongxia Zhao 1,2,3, Yongzhi Zhang 1,2,3, Haoyuan Feng 1,2,3 and Xin Lin 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
Please change the sie of the fig1. Too small
Concerning the EBSD, fig4, in the tsxt do not hesitate to developp the pole figure.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your careful reading and valuable comments in detail. We have studied your comments carefully and we hope the revised manuscript can meet with your approval. Please check the attachment for the specific respons.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
A good topic. Few comments
- How to prove using Figure 5 that there are changes in along the top middle and bottom.
-How does a small cross-section dictate the behavior in the whole part from Fig5 ?
-Fig 10 shows that the difference is not that much. Change in hardness is very limited - any comments?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your careful reading and valuable comments in detail. We have studied your comments carefully and we hope the revised manuscript can meet with your approval. Please check the attachment for the specific respons.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I read through the manuscript carefully.
However, I could not find any singularity or something new in this study.
The authors chose the superalloy system. Why? They analyzed it by SEM, TEM, and other related methods. The whole experiment was done carefully and systematically, but that seems to be all.
And they summarized their results with some comments borrowed from the literature. Could the authors present and highlight something new and thus different from the literature? Could they suggest their idea and analysis points? I got the impression that the discussion was missing.
I suggest the authors rewrite and restructure the paper to highlight their strengths, especially in the Introduction, Discussion, and Concluding remarks sections.
Regarding their English:
They are using Top, Middle and Bottom. It seems that the use of capital letters is not justified.
p. 11, what does it mean by "... back into the solute..."?
They are using the terms, SAED, or SEAD. Supposedly, meaning selected area diffraction pattern (SADP). Please define the abbreviation in the beginning.
p.6, what does "STC stand for? The term stands for subsequent thermal cycles, as indicated in the Abstract. However, it would be better to define it in the main text again.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your careful reading and valuable comments in detail. We have studied your comments carefully and we hope the revised manuscript can meet with your approval. Please check the attachment for the specific respons.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I have found that the authors nicely addressed my reservations.
I suggest the manuscript being published as is.
