Influence of Processing Parameters on Laser-Assisted Reactive Sintering of a Mixture of Ni and Ti Powders
, Pedro Henrique Poubel Mendonça da Silveira 1, PatrÃcia Freitas Rodrigues 2, Danilo AbÃlio Corrêa Gonçalves 1, Silvelene Alessandra Silva Dyer 3, Rodolfo da Silva Teixeira 4, Rafael Humberto Mota de Siqueira 3, Milton Sergio Fernandes de Lima 3, Daniel Leal Bayerlein 5 and Andersan dos Santos Paula 1
Dmitry Efimovich Kaputkin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is very interesting, it is especially important that the authors managed to obtain extremely low porosity using reactive sintering. Unfortunately, the article doesn't discrabe results of followed homogenezating annealing. I hope that will be theme of the next article.
The only incomprehensible result is in Table 1: where did the nickel go, because the initial mixture of powders was equiatomic. This fact requires explanation.
1. The article describes a method for producing TiNi intermetallic compound by reactive synthesis.
2-3. This method is well known, but the authors were able to achieve extremely low porosity.
4. Authors did not argue decreasing of the Ni content.
5. All questions posed by authors are solved.
6. The references are appropriate?
7. Information in the Table 1 should be commented, other tables and figures are good.
Author Response
Attached is the letter with the responses to the reviewers.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The theme of this article is to study how to achieve the best preparation results by adjusting the laser scanning speed to change different input energies. The main problem with the article is that the introduction section is not clear enough to explain the author's research background and purpose.
2. As far as I know, this paper is basically original and can solve some technical and process problems in the actual preparation process.
3. Compare to other published materials, it adds practical experience summary in the preparation process for the theme field.
4. The conclusion obtained by the author is in agreement with the data provided.
5. The references supplied by the author are generally appropriate.
Author Response
Attached is the letter with the responses to the reviewers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1) The cross-section cut illustration in Fig. 1 is difficult to understand. Since the green body is cylindrical, the illustration is given as rectangular. What is the thickness in the Fig. Is it the height of the green body (pellet)? This is important for readers to better understand the SEM images.
2) In Section 2.2, please give mixing ratios and determine the elemental composition in wt%. An XRF or OES result can be given for mixed powders composition.
3) Providing more information about processing in Section 2.2, i.e., scanning strategy, and hatch distance, will help readers better understand the process strategy and the resulting microstructural formations.
4) In Fig. 4, it is unclear which images were taken at x500 and x2500 magnifications. Please restructure the images with readable scale bars. Also, show porosities with arrays, as you did for Ti and Ni.
5) For the discussion of Table 1, please discuss further why the Ti amount is higher in the start cross-section compared to middle and end in both conditions. Why is there a loss of Ni in the start section? Is it related to the area of ROI (region of interest) during EDX analysis? I recommend to remeasure elemental composition at lower magnifications as x50 , incl the full cross-sectional area at start, middle, and end.
6) In Fig. 5, scale bars are not readable. I recommend using a black background for a white scale bar and increasing the font size.
7) In conclusion, authors stated that condition 1 resulted with greater porosity, but in Fig. 4, it seems that condition 2 has more porosity in the microstructure. Authors has to clarify if condition 1 has bigger pores compared to condition 2. I recommend measuring the relative density of sintered parts by archimedes principle or micro-CT for a better volumetric pore information.
Author Response
Attached is the letter with the responses to the reviewers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors did not full fill the comments of previous review.
The authors are not able to answer the points 2,3, and 5 in the report.
Author Response
Please see the attachment;
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors improved the quality of the paper after revision. I believe they will consider our recommendations on a detailed chemistry of microstructure in their future works.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, please find attached the latest version of the manuscript after the English correction
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
