Ratcheting Simulation of Additively Manufactured Aluminum 4043 Samples through Finite Element Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is devoted to the current topic of manufacturing parts using additive technologies. However, a number of points should be finalized before publishing the article.

1. Expand the abstract. Describe the results obtained in more detail in the article.

2. Add keywords

3. In the introduction section you described mainly the results of printing blanks. In this case, you should pay a little attention to the phase composition of the alloys being printed. For a short description of it, you can use data from

https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12060981

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2006.10.145

It would also be nice to add information about works similar to yours. Where is the modeling of properties discussed?

4. The methodology section needs significant improvement. It is necessary to start with a work plan. Then describe the programs and products used for modeling. Describe the input data and material constants you used for the simulation.

5. When describing Figure 9, it would be good to use links to the figures you describe (a, b, c, ...). It would also be nice to expand the description of this drawing. Your graph shows that the simulation results almost never coincide with the experimental results. In addition, often the slope of the lines and the shape of the experimental lines differ from the simulation results. Also, when describing, you need to describe the resulting deviation of the results as a percentage.

6. In the article you do not describe that you conducted your own tests. Therefore, in the methodology section it would be good to write where the experimental data were taken from for comparison with the calculated ones.

7. More results obtained should be added in the conclusions. Provide numerical results of the obtained accuracy in a more expanded form.

8. In conclusions, describe where and how the results obtained can be practically used.

Author Response

Authors' response to the reviewer's comment is attached.

Authors wish to extend their sincere gratitude to the respected reviewer for the constructive comments. We did our best to address these valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the reviewer opinion, the paper can be recommended for publication in Applied science journal after addressing the following comments:

- Section 2 is a mathematical formulation of the material's behavior, and should be renamed numerical model or mathematical formulation...

- Section 2 contains a description of the material under study a table of the material's mechanical characteristics required for Chaboch's model.

- It is recommended that a flowchart describing the procedure used in this investigation be added to section 2 as a method with the material presented.

- Fig 2 result is from the same reference [15]?

- It is strongly recommended to add a validation test with experimental results in order to validate your finite element model and verify the accuracy of the results presented.

- Figure 6. A reference test from an experiment is necessary to better select the type of element.

- As well as figure 7 needs a comparison with experimental test

- It is highly recommended to highlight the novelty of current research in the conclusion section.

Author Response

Authors' response to the reviewer comments is attached.

Authors wish to extend their sincere gratitude to the respected reviewer for the constructive comments. We did our best to address these valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract, keywords, conclusions were finalized. The authors have generally revised the article. The article may be published.

Reviewer 2 Report

The updated version of the manuscript can be accepted for publication