Study on the Measurement of Stress in the Surface of Selective Laser Melting Forming Parts Based on the Critical Refraction Longitudinal Wave

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reject. I have any ethical concerns about this study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

   Thank you very much for the time and effort that you have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Your suggestions are very useful for our future scientific research. Based on your comment and request, I have given a detailed explanation and made some modifications on the original manuscript. Here, I attached revised manuscript in the formats of MS word for your approval. Appended to this letter is my point-by-point response to the comments raised by you.  The comments are reproduced and my responses are given directly afterward in a different color (red).

A revised manuscript with the correction sections red marked was attached as the supplemental material and for easy check/editing purpose.  

 Should you have any questions, please contact me without hesitate. 

 

Kind regards

Yan XiaoLing

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper reports about “Study on measurement of stress in surface of selective laser melting forming parts based on critical refraction longitudinal wave”. The topic of the paper has a relevant interest for the technology. However, it requires a revision prior to publication.

The following suggestions have to be addressed before publication of the paper:

1) In the Introduction there is the lack of informations concerning the impact of SLM process parameters on the material structure. The previous results of experiments deal with investigating  the material structure of 316 L stainless steel manufactured by using SLM technology, should be added.

2) In the Figures 11a and 11b, the division of the acustic elastic curves in the a1 and a2 directions should be marked.

3) The values of the collected signal presented in the Figures 11a and 11b, should be an average values from mesurements. In the text there is no information how many the measurements have ben perfomed for the directions and the kind of the sample.

4) While melting metal powder, the distribution of argon gas in the chamber is an anequal. It causes the difference in the structure of melted sample. Please consider the phenomena while process.

5) Please indicate which the mechanical properties of SLM specimens are subjected to the scanning startegy influence of SLM process.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer: 

 Thank you very much for the time and effort that you have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Your suggestions have enabled me to improve my work greatly. Based on your comment and request, I have made extensive modification on the original manuscript. Here, I attached revised manuscript in the formats of MS word, for your approval. Appended to this letter is my point-by-point response to the comments raised by you.  The comments are reproduced and my responses are given directly afterward in a different color (red).

A revised manuscript with the correction sections red marked was attached as the supplemental material and for easy check/editing purpose.  

 Should you have any questions, please contact me without hesitate. 

 

Kind regards

Yan XiaoLing

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The main concern is that, according to the description, the experiment is based on one specimen for each scanning strategy, which doesn't give a statistical data regarded to the results and doesn't exclude a potential blunder.

There is a lot of typos, missing or unwanted spaces in the text. Also, some language errors occur, so I suggest a proofreading service. 

Table 2 - units should be moved below the parameter and taken into brackets.

The sentence "The scanning paths of the three scanning strategies are shown in Fig.4." (lines 138-139) isn't true.

Figure 6 has the wrong title.

Figure 7 (and others) - the font size of the descriptions should be equal to the main text.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

  Thank you very much for the time and effort that you have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Your suggestions have enabled me to improve my work greatly. Based on your comment and request, five specimens for each scanning strategy had been prepared, and five times of data were collected along the a1 and a2 directions under each load. So a statistical data regarded to the results were given in the paper. I have made extensive modification on the original manuscript. Here, I attached revised manuscript in the formats of MS word, for your approval. Appended to this letter is my point-by-point response to the comments raised by you.  The comments are reproduced and our responses are given directly afterward in a different color (red).

A revised manuscript with the correction sections red marked was attached asthe supplemental material and for easy check/editing purpose.  

 Should you have any questions, please contact me without hesitate. 

Kind regards

Yan XiaoLing

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper describes a good scientific level. The content of the paper is good, so the suggestions for modifications are the following:

1. What standard did you use for tensile specimens?

2. How was loading speed chosen 1 kN /s?

3. As the data analysis (tensile strength, elastic modulus) of this article, more statistic analysis should been added, for example, the coefficient of variation of the experimental data should been added and discussed.

4. Three Stress-strain curves data in Figure 11 is unusual and all curves should be presented on one graph.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer: Thank you very much for the time and effort that you have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Based on your comment and request, I have made extensive modifications on the original manuscript. Here, I attached revised manuscript in the formats of MS word for your approval. Appended to this letter is my point-by-point response to the comments raised by you. The comments are reproduced and my responses are given directly afterward in a different color (red). A revised manuscript with the correction sections red marked was attached as the supplemental material and for easy check/editing purpose. Should you have any questions, please contact me without hesitate. Kind regards Yan XiaoLing

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

If additional samples were made, and additional tests were performed, why there is no statistical data related to the results (standard deviation for example)? Either the numerical values and the values presented in plots should have the standard deviation included/marked. 

I'm curious how were the stress-strain curves averaged. Usually, all the curves obtained from tests are shown on one plot and only determined parameters (Tensile strength, etc.) are statistically processed.

Figure "11 a" and "11 b" are the same - the chart "11 a" presented in the previous version of the manuscript was significantly different.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

  Thank you very much for the time and effort that you have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Your suggestions have enabled me to improve my work greatly. Based on your comment and request, five specimens for each scanning strategy had been prepared, and five times of data were collected along the a1 and a2 directions under each load. So a statistical data regarded to the results were given in the paper. I have made extensive modification on the original manuscript. Here, I attached revised manuscript in the formats of MS word, for your approval. Appended to this letter is my point-by-point response to the comments raised by you.  The comments are reproduced and our responses are given directly afterward in a different color (red).

A revised manuscript with the correction sections red marked was attached asthe supplemental material and for easy check/editing purpose.  

 Should you have any questions, please contact me without hesitate. 

Kind regards

Yan XiaoLing

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Please check the compliance of the drawings numeration with the text. Besides this, I consider all the issues I have given resolved.