Optimization of 3D Printed Rapid Prototype Deep Drawing Tools for Automotive and Railway Sheet Material Testing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The presented manuscript deals with the optimization of 3D-printed rapid prototype deep drawing tools for automotive and railway sheet material testing

Page 1, Abstract-the originality and novelty of the research activity are not well exposed and highlighted.

Page 5, Materials and Methods- please describe your selected methods. Why are these the best as the others?

Page 13, Results and discussion- Pro&Contra of obtained results are missing. Describe more in deep the importance of your results for the next research.

Page 24, Conclusion- It would be so nice if you describe the optimization of 3D-printed rapid prototype deep drawing tools for automotive and railway sheet material testing more deeply in the context of the next research.

Author Response

See the attached PDF file. Remark: there are the changes tracked at the end of the file to be able to check them.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors submitted the manuscript Optimization of 3D printed rapid prototype deep drawing tools for automotive and railway sheet material testing.

The main objective of this research is to identify optimal printing strategies and PLA (polylactic acid) filament materials to produce rapid prototype deep drawing tools.

On the face of it, the paper is interesting and will certainly find a professional readership. The manuscript is of an applied character.

 

 

Major revision:

·         Include in the manuscript the requirements for deep drawing tools (material properties, hardness, etc.).

·         Why did you choose PLA material?

·         Were post-process treatments (smoothing) applied to the surface after 3D printing? If not, why not? You should include this in your conclusion/discussion.

·         Do you think it would affect the accuracy of the production? You should include this in your conclusion/discussion.

 

Minor revision:

·         I recommend the introduction could be shorter,

·         image 9 requires a better scale resolution

 

ISO/ASTM 52900 standard terminology is correct.

 

 

The paper is relevant to practice and is not a major scientific advance. Because of the choice of the journal, I recommend the manuscript for publication after completing the answers to the questions in the Major revision. 

Author Response

See the attached PDF file. Remark: there are the changes tracked at the end of the file to be able to check them.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors reported the study on 3d printing of deep drawing tools and relevant application testing. Four printers and four materials have been used in the study. The application testing was done using industrial tools (GOM ATOS measuring system). Overall, I found the research reported to be interesting, novel and appropriate to the journal. However, the main content is a bit long and too details. Sometimes, the language used in the manuscript is a little bit casual. I therefore recommend the article undergo major revisions prior to acceptance.

Main comments:

1.      The authors have done a comprehensive literature review in the Introduction. I enjoy reading this part, but also felt some of content are not close relevant which caused the Introduction is too long. I recommend the authors to short the Introduction.

2.      Talking about casual language, for instance, in page 8, line 246-249. Please correct and use formal style.

3.      The authors mentioned four printers, but never mentioned again in the section of Results and discussion. There are too many details in Results and discussion. I could miss it if the authors mentioned it. It will lead to my 4^th comment.

4.      I recommend to have appendix section in which, for instance, Figure 9 – 14 should be. Authors could put more detailed info into appendix section in order to make Results and discussion more concise.

Author Response

See the attached PDF file. Remark: there are the changes tracked at the end of the file to be able to check them.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper provides a study on optimization of 3D printed rapid prototype deep drawing tools for sheet metal forming. 3D Printing is a hot topic currently being tried to be adapted to many different applications. This study is a good piece of these kinds of works. I suggest publication after addressing the remarks given below.

·        Please check the text for typos and grammar.

·        Please clearly emphasize the novelty in this work.

·        What is the motivation for this study?

·        Table 1,2 and Fig.4 could be removed since they give the technical details/photo of the standard equipment.

·        Table 3,4 should include the base elements by denoting Bal.

·        The manuscript has too much text making the readers lost. Better to reduce!

·        Fig.9: the scale is not visible.

·        What about the geometrical accuracy in blanks after forming?

·        Authors may consider the workpiece in the process.

·        What about plastic deformations on the punch? Is it possible to confuse with wear deformations?

·        Conclusions should be extended by giving the highlights.

 

Author Response

See the attached PDF file. Remark: there are the changes tracked at the end of the file to be able to check them.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

I commend the authors for their research on optimization of 3D printed rapid prototype deep drawing tools for automotive and railway sheet material testing. Introduction is appropriate. Methods used were well defined. Results, graphs and tables were well represented. All the conclusions drawn from the results were logical. I would suggest publishing this article in the current state.

Author Response

See the attached PDF file. Remark: there are the changes tracked at the end of the file to be able to check them.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

The abstract should appeal to the reader. Novelty should be presented transparently. Research achievements should be mentioned quantitatively. The purpose of doing the work should also be mentioned.

The first two paragraphs of the introduction and Figure 1 can be deleted. The first paragraph is very superficial and general and general information. The statistical analysis is not suitable for a research paper with this title. The importance of 3D printing and additive printing methods is not hidden to anyone. The introduction should focus on the FDM printing method which is the subject of the manuscript.

Also, many parts of the introduction are superficial and it is suggested to be more complete by using the following sources (3D printing of PLA-TPU with different component ratios: Fracture toughness, mechanical properties, and morphology, A New Strategy for Achieving Shape Memory Effects in 4D Printed Two-Layer Composite Structures, 4D printing of PET-G via FDM including tailormade excess third shape, Development of Pure Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) with Excellent 3D Printability and Macro‐and Micro‐Structural Properties).

Generalization can also be seen in the research method section. For example, lines 205-208 are not necessary and should be deleted. It is suggested that all parts of the manuscript with general and repetitive information be removed.

 

Figure 2 should be deleted. Figure 4 can also be deleted. Add a scale bar to the images. The results lack and without quantitative data, it is not possible to judge the shape-shifting and shape memory effect of samples. Some images are duplicates that need to be removed. Some parts of the results should be moved to the previous part. In the results section, in addition to presenting experimental data, discussion and analysis should also be added to it.

Author Response

See the attached PDF file. Remark: there are the changes tracked at the end of the file to be able to check them.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for accepting my comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript can be published in this form.

Reviewer 3 Report

Although not all my requirements are fulfilled due to the influence of other reviewers' opinions, I can accept current form.  

Reviewer 4 Report

Final version is acceptable. 

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments are well-considered and answered.