Insights into Temperature Simulation and Validation of Fused Deposition Modeling Processes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Currently, FDM/FFF method is one of the most popular 3D printing technology. Therefore, I consider the topic of the research paper to be important. There are a few issues that need to be clarified before further proceeding:

1. In the Introduction section, the authors cite a large number of articles without indicating the most important results for each of them e.g. page 2 lines 67, 88, 93, 97.

2. More detailed information on the 3D printer used should be added in the text such as: type of 3D printer (low-cost, desktop or industrial), filament diameter, slicer etc.

3. How was the extrusion velocity changed, more detailed explanation should be added?

4. Why the authors decided to analyse the extrusion velocity, whether other process factors can influence on the results e.g. layer thickness?

5. Whether the authors repeated the experiment/printing process, what was the statistical analysis of the measurement data?

6. Page 10 line 372: several temperatures or several  extrusion velocity?

7. What was the resolution/accuracy of the measurement with the use of infrared camera?

8. The authors conclude that: ,,The presented model is highly simplified …’’ How they plan to expand it in future works?

9. In my opinion the most important conclusions should be formulated in points.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the author discussed the temperature simulation of FDM 3D printing. Here are my suggestions.

1: This paper is about FDM. When introducing the 3D printing in the introduction, I suggest the authors focus on the FDM instead of all kinds of 3D printing.

2: The authors made a comprehensive introduction of the previous work on numerical study of thermal process of FDM. I would suggest the authors make a better summary of these works instead of introducing these works one by one.

3: The title of 2.1 does not summary the coordinate information. Please rename it.

4: Figure 2 seems unnecessary.

5: Results, section 3.1, need to be improved. Currently, the authors just show all the simulation results with further discussion of the purpose of these simulations. I suggest the authors to reorganize the results and discussion parts. 

6: Figure 9 should be remade. If the authors are showing some important information through the screenshot, they should summarize these information. 

7: The FLIR images in figure 12 is hard to understand. A normal optical image would be very helpful.

 

3: There are a few typos, such as line 126, and grammar errors, such as line 141, 197, 354, etc

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The study by these authors deals with the validation of a protocol to improve printability in AD. Despite in some parts is more similar to a report than to a scientific publication, I would recommend its publication. The abstract must be modified (see suggestion in the attached .pdf) and the experimental section (as regards materials characteristics) needs care. In the attachment are some other minor suggestions. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

I have thoroughly reviewed your manuscript and appreciate the valuable research contributions you have presented in the context of FDM. The reviewer recommends a minor revision to address a few specific points that will enhance the overall quality of your work.

-Explanation of Equipment: The article mentions the use of the Beeprusa printer for ABS printing. However, it would be helpful to provide more details about this printer, such as its specifications, capabilities, and any specific settings used during the printing process.

- Lines 162-163: Rephrase the sentence.

- Figure 1: Add a temperature scale to the thermographic image.

- Table 1: What temperature does the Specific Heat Capacity refer to? The same for density.

- Lines 197-205: The article mentions a temperature discrepancy between setpoint and real temperatures for both the bed and nozzle. It would be helpful to explain the potential reasons for these discrepancies in more detail. Factors like emissivity and core vs. surface temperature differences should be elaborated on.

- Figure 9: Provide a clearer figure with zoom only where needed.

- Figure 16: Unclear image due to the lack of references (e.g., millimeters).

 

- Consider extending the bibliography by including the following papers: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15207399 (line 61, about ceramics); https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs7090367 (line 60, about automotive parts fabrication).

Best regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for preparing detailed responses for my questions. In my opinion paper can be accepted in present form. 

Author Response

The authors are grateful for all comments and suggestions, which contributed to a significant improvement of the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

One more suggestion might be helpful for the authors. The color label in the lengend of figure 14 is hard to see. 

The language of the manuscript can be improved. 

For example, the first point in the conclusion, 'By the use of infrared thermal equipment, thermal gradients and the critical spots in  the extruded piece or parts can be experimentally perceived, however only those at the surface are observed.' -> 'Through the use of infrared thermal equipment, thermal gradients and critical spots in  the extruded piece or parts can be experimentally perceived; however only those at the surface are observed. '

Author Response

The authors acknowledge the Reviewers’ comments and suggestions, which contributed to improving the paper.

Point 1: One more suggestion might be helpful for the authors. The color label in the lengend of figure 14 is hard to see.

Comment/action: The authors are grateful for the suggestion, which even led to the correction of a typo in the caption. The figure has been improved and made clear. See Figure below.

Point 2: The language of the manuscript can be improved. For example, the first point in the conclusion, 'By the use of infrared thermal equipment, thermal gradients and the critical spots in  the extruded piece or parts can be experimentally perceived, however only those at the surface are observed.' -> 'Through the use of infrared thermal equipment, thermal gradients and critical spots in  the extruded piece or parts can be experimentally perceived; however only those at the surface are observed.

Comment/action: The English language has been revised accordingly.