Infill Microstructures for Additive Manufacturing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have carried out a numerical simulation to optimize the topology of support structures. The kind of work has already been done by a few researchers. However, the present work has the simulation results of complete structure to some extent and give a clear picture of what can be the result of doing a topology optimization for various designs. The authors could have validated the model with a real product to substantiate their claim. Apart from this minor observation, this paper looks good to go for publication.
Author Response
On behalf of the authors, I would like to thank the reviewer for the time taken to review the manuscript. Please find attached a revised version of the article where all the reviewers’ comments have been addressed.
Reviewer 1
Comment #1:
The authors could have validated the model with a real product to substantiate their claim.
Response:
We thank the reviewer for this remark. The proposed framework is the initial step, experimental work for validation is the next step, which is planned for the near future.
Reviewer 2 Report
In the manuscript, the authors presented the results of research on the optimization of the microstructures of additive manufacturing materials. The research area presented in the manuscript is up-to-date, and the growing interest in additive manufacturing confirms the advisability of developing this technology.
The most important comments that should be considered include:
- Despite the very interesting subject, the work does not include any experimental verification of the results obtained.In my opinion, it is only an introduction to a more detailed analysis.
- The lack of validation of the results makes it difficult to assess their quality. However, the presented results may only indicate the possibilities of the developed algorithm.
- There are no clear conclusions.
Author Response
On behalf of the authors, I would like to thank the reviewer for the time taken to review the manuscript. Please find attached a revised version of the article where all the reviewers’ comments have been addressed.
Comment #1:
Despite the very interesting subject, the work does not include any experimental verification of the results obtained. In my opinion, it is only an introduction to a more detailed analysis.
Response:
We thank the reviewer for this remark. The proposed framework is the initial step, experimental work for validation is the next step.
Comment #2:
The lack of validation of the results makes it difficult to assess their quality. However, the presented results may only indicate the possibilities of the developed algorithm.
Response:
We thank the reviewer for this comment. The results of the current manuscript show that the proposed algorithm is promised for further investigation and validation. It is understandable that for the time being only evaluation of numerical results can be performed.
Comment #3:
There are no clear conclusions.
Response:
We thank the reviewer for this remark. Following this remark, a conclusions section has been added.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper “Infill microstructures for additive manufacturing” aims to evaluate and characterize the optimized microstructure a general homogenization method to calculate the Zener ratio and the elastic modulus. The study is well presented and shows interesting results, so it would be advisable to publish it after changes:
- A graphical abstract would add interest to catch the eye
- Describe the acronyms used: Solid Isotropic Material with Penalization (SIMP)
- The end of the introduction should state the novelty of the paper presented.
- Please redo the sentences in personals, for example:
“we present a modern approach…” as “a modern approach is presented..”
- Figures 5 and 6 b) have a strange background, please homogenize them.
- Some recent references to the subject matter are missing. Some of the following could be added:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.09.020
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-022-06702-x
https://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.2021.0008
- Missing conclusions please add results of accounting and qualitative results.
Author Response
On behalf of the authors, I would like to thank the reviewer for the time taken to review the manuscript. Please find attached a revised version of the article where all the reviewers’ comments have been addressed.
Comment #1:
A graphical abstract would add interest to catch the eye
Response:
We thank the reviewer for this remark. Following this remark, a graphical abstract has been added.
Comment #2:
Describe the acronyms used: Solid Isotropic Material with Penalization (SIMP)
Response:
We thank the reviewer for this remark. The acronyms SIMP is described.
Comment #3:
The end of the introduction should state the novelty of the paper presented.
Response:
We thank the reviewer for this remark. Following this remark, to the end of the introduction a paragraph with a description of the novelty has been added.
Comment #4:
Please redo the sentences in personals, for example:
“we present a modern approach…” as “a modern approach is presented.
”Response:
We thank the reviewer for this remark. Following this remark, the sentences in personals are fixed.
Comment #5:
Figures 5 and 6 b) have a strange background, please homogenize them.
”Response:
We thank the reviewer for this remark. Following this remark, figures 5 and 6b have been homogenized
Comment #6:
Some recent references to the subject matter are missing. Some of the following could be added:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.09.020
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-022-06702-x
https://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.2021.0008
Response:
We thank the reviewer for this remark. The new citations [7], [8], [26] have been added.
Comment #7:
Missing conclusions please add results of accounting and qualitative results
Response:
We thank the reviewer for this remark. Following this remark, a conclusions section has been added.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
In line with the previous comments, the lack of experimental verification prevents the qualitative assessment of the results presented in the manuscript. I understand that there must always be some preliminary research results that are a prelude to further work, but in this case it might be worth waiting for the article to be published until we have experimental confirmation of the presented results. Especially that the subject of the Applied Sciences Journal is related to the applications of science.
The conclusions are still not specific, but rather a short summary. Moreover, the authors indicate that the proposed algorithm allows to determine the anisoptopicity of the manufactured materials with the incremental method, which seems not entirely true, because such information can be obtained only after experimental verification.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the time taken to review the manuscript. Please find attached a revised version of the article where all the reviewers’ comments have been addressed.
Comment #1:
In line with the previous comments, the lack of experimental verification prevents the qualitative assessment of the results presented in the manuscript. I understand that there must always be some preliminary research results that are a prelude to further work, but in this case it might be worth waiting for the article to be published until we have experimental confirmation of the presented results. Especially that the subject of the Applied Sciences Journal is related to the applications of science. Response:
Response:
According to this comment the proposed microstructures were evaluated experimentally. The sections: 4. Lattice structures fabrication and 5.4. Experimental results are completed new.
Comment #2:
The conclusions are still not specific, but rather a short summary.
Response:
According to this comment, conclusions changed.
Comment #3:
Moreover, the authors indicate that the proposed algorithm allows to determine the anisoptopicity of the manufactured materials with the incremental method, which seems not entirely true, because such information can be obtained only after experimental verification.
Response: According to this comment experimental verification was executed
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The work has been largely supplemented, which significantly improves its quality. In the conclusions chapter, it is worth adding 2-3 specific conclusions resulting from the conducted research.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the time taken to review the manuscript. Please find attached a revised version of the article where all the reviewers’ comments have been addressed.
Comment#1: In the conclusions chapter, it is worth adding 2-3 specific conclusions resulting from the conducted research.
Response: Thanks to this comment the conclusions chapter has been enriched with specific conclusions from the research.
