Structure Formation and Mechanical Properties of Wire Arc Additively Manufactured Al4043 (AlSi5) Components

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, structure formation and mechanical properties of wire arc additively manufactured Al4043 (AlSi5) components were compared between L200 and L400 specimens. The manuscript gives good scientific information. My points are as follows.

1. The reason for the difference of microstructure in the two specimens should be given in Abstract briefly.

2. The purpose of the studying of two different length of AM components should be given in Introduction.

3. The tensile specimens should be pointed out by arrows in Fig .2 and Fig. 3.

4. Too many arrows are used in Fig.8. In addition, what is formed should be given near the arrow.

5. The photo style should be consistent for Fig. 10, 11, 12 and 13.

6. It will be better that combine Fig. 14, 15 and 16 into one figure, Fig. 17, 18 and 19 into one figure.

7. Figure 24 should be placed in front of Figure 23.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Grammar and professional vocabulary should be improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for the valuable comments and suggestions that helped us improve the quality of our manuscript!

Best regards,

Georgi Kotlarski

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is devoted to the study of printing modes of hypoeutectic silumin using electron-arc surfacing. In general, this topic is quite relevant and this article may be of great interest to both researchers and employees of manufacturing enterprises working with additive technologies. However, before the article is accepted, a number of modifications must be made.

1. The overview part is quite large and contains a lot of general information. Almost the entire first page is devoted to fairly general things. The overview part concerning the research presented in this article is almost only on page 3. This part should be expanded. And at the same time, the overall part should be significantly reduced. It would also be good to add information about the phase composition of the silumins under study to the review part. To do this, you can use the sources: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12060987; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2009.01.019

2. In the methodology section for the equipment used, indicate in brackets the manufacturer and country of production.

3. It would be good to describe in detail in the methodology section why you chose only two lengths for the study: 200 and 400 mm. And also write why you didn’t take smaller or larger values.

4. It is worth noting that the quality of photographs of the microstructure is quite low.

5. Extectic aluminum alloys are also prone to dendritic crystallization. Your photographs show that the cooling rate is quite high and a developed dendritic structure is not obtained in the first layers. But in the last layers the cooling is less intense and the dendrites are slightly more developed. It would be worth addressing this issue in your description. This would additionally allow you to explain the processes occurring during crystallization.

6. When describing the structure, numerical values of grain sizes should be used and given.

7. You showed what are essentially macropores in the cross-sectional photographs of samples. Did you have interlayer porosity? Of course, with VAAM technology there is good penetration. But this issue could be briefly reflected in the article.

8. In the conclusions it would be good to indicate the possibilities of practical use of the results obtained in the article.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The author team would like to thank you for your excellent suggestions and recommendations, that helped us to significantly improve the quality of our work. Please find attached to the MDPI system the full response. We hope that the corrections made are in full agreement with your suggestions.

Best regards,

Georgi Kotlarski

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have corrected the article. The article may be published.