Additive Manufacturing of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Epoxy Thermoset with Improved Thermomechanical Properties
, Antonio Delgadillo 1,3, Md Shahjahan Mahmud 1,3, Joseph Munoz 1,3, Saqlain Zaman 1,2,3, Sofia Gabriela Gomez 1,2,3, Cory Marquez 1,2,3, Johnny C. Ho 4 and Yirong Lin 1,2,3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents a study regarding the characteristics of additive manufactured composite materials consisting in epoxy-based thermoset matrix reinforced with different percentages of short carbon fiber.
The manuscript can be accepted after several aspects are clarified and changes are made. As the line numbers are missing, I will try to present the observations starting from the beginning of the manuscript, in order.
1. The Abstract section should be reduced, it should be about 200 words, and only the information relating the present research and results should be kept.
2. In the Introduction section it should be paid attention regarding the definition of AM technology, specific methods and processes. For this the last version of the ASTM ISO/ASTM52900 should be used.
3. Spaces between paragraphs should be removed.
4. The abbreviations should be explained first time when they appear in text and afterwards, they can be used without explaining what they mean.
5. In Experimental methodology section all producers/distributors of equipment or materials should be mentioned the first time they appear and afterwards, they should not be mentioned again.
6. Please explain why was included the equation (1) of the energy density if it was not further used and no calculated energy densities were presented.
7. The equation for Young’s modulus should be numbered.
8. The expression “as per Table-2” was used in text, please refer to all figures and tables: presented in Table x or Figure x, or other more appropriate way.
9. Please mention if the tapping of the powder was realized manually and how many taps were used.
10. The name of the figures should be put under the image.
11. English proofreading should be performed.
Thank you!
Author Response
Thank you for your wonderful comments, and suggestions!
Please see the attachment to get our complete feedback.
Thank you!
-Sahid Hassan
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Over all the paper is well written, there are few points which the authors can address, so as to make it very clear for the readers.
2. Generally, the thermo mechanical properties means the treatment involving thermal as well as mechanical loading done on the materials, which are generally seen in steels. How authors are corelating this treatment with polymer-based composites?
3. In the abstract, the authors have mentioned the improved modulus, a brief line explaining about the reason for the improvement is necessary in the abstract.
4. I can see some self-citations in the manuscript. Are those very necessary?
5. What is the need of this type of additive manufacturing? The applications and how this material differ from the available materials should be discussed in the introduction section.
6. Generally, polymers are cured below 100 deg. C. what is the main intension for heating the polymer to 185 deg. C? Based on my knowledge, the polymer loses its property at higher temperatures.
7. Table 1 title should come above the table, and rewrite the units properly.
8. In the paper too many basic and general things are described (like a text book) which is increasing the length of the paper. Is it so necessary?
9. Figure title should come below the figure. Figure 1 shows the powder which is uneven in size, is it ok? The impact of different particle size must be discussed.
10. From figure 1, its hard to identify the composition of the powder, the authors can add the EDAX analysis for the same.
11. In figure 2 a. and b. initial wt.% is same, later it is varying. I would like to know the reason for the same initial wt.%%.
12. In uncured printed samples, the variation is too high. The reason for the same must be discussed.
13. In figure 6, the error in the flexural modulus is too high!!!! (more than 100MPa). Check the data again.
14. I am unable o understand the significance of fig. 7!! What does it indicate?
15. In figure 9. Why there is a so much noise after 100 deg. C?
16. In figure 11. I find no difference in the images!!! Highlight the differences between them using arrows and show them on the images.
Author Response
Thank you for your wonderful comments, and suggestions!
Please see the attachment to get our complete feedback.
Thank you!
-Sahid Hassan
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript was improved. The spaces between paragraphs are still present but can be removed during the last editing stage.
The manuscript can be accepted for publishing.
Reviewer 2 Report
Organize the manuscript properly.
