Thanks Asaf.

Not easy, but doable.

Please let me know if you need help.

El'ad.

---

From: asafp
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 10:40:51 AM
To: eladc; drorivin@gmail.com; oriyehe@gmail.com; eitant@rotemi.co.il; sven@lanl.gov
Subject: Fw: Invitation to revise manuscript ADDMA_2018_62

 

---

From: Eric MacDonald (Additive Manufacturing) <EviseSupport@elsevier.com>
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 4:26 AM
To: asafp
Subject: Invitation to revise manuscript ADDMA_2018_62

 

Ref: ADDMA_2018_62
Title: Texture Analysis of Additively Manufactured Ti-6Al-4V using Neutron Diffraction
Journal: Additive Manufacturing

Dear Dr. Pesach,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Additive Manufacturing. We have completed the review of your manuscript. A summary is appended below. While revising the paper please consider the reviewers' comments carefully. We look forward to receiving your detailed response and your revised manuscript.

To submit your revised manuscript:

• Log into EVISE® at: http://www.evise.com/evise/faces/pages/navigation/NavController.jspx?JRNL_ACR=ADDMA
• Locate your manuscript under the header 'My Submissions that need Revisions' on your 'My Author Tasks' view
• Click on 'Agree to Revise'
• Make the required edits
• Click on 'Complete Submission' to approve

What happens next?
After approving your submission you will receive a notification that the submission is complete. To track the status of your paper throughout the editorial process, log into EVISE® at: http://www.evise.com/evise/faces/pages/navigation/NavController.jspx?JRNL_ACR=ADDMA

Enrich your article to present your research with maximum impact. This journal supports the following Content Innovations:

• Interactive 3D Models: Interactive viewer for 3D geometric shapes, models and virtual environments. Please upload your model(s) in the U3D, PLY, OBJ, STL or VTK format as supplementary material.

• Interactive Plots: Interactive plot viewer providing easy access to the data behind plots. Please prepare a .CSV file with your plot data and test it online here before submitting as supplementary material.

Data in Brief (optional)

We invite you to convert your supplementary data (or a part of it) into a Data in Brief article. Data in Brief articles are descriptions of the data and associated metadata which are normally buried in supplementary material. They are actively reviewed, curated, formatted, indexed, given a DOI and freely available to all upon publication. Data in Brief should be uploaded with your revised manuscript directly to Additive Manufacturing. If your Additive Manufacturing research article is accepted, your Data in Brief article will automatically be transferred over to our new, fully Open Access journal, Data in Brief, where it will be editorially reviewed and published as a separate data article upon acceptance. The Open Access fee for Data in Brief is $500.

Please just fill in the template found here:
http://www.elsevier.com/inca/publications/misc/dib_data%20article%20template_for%20other%20journals.docx. Then, place all Data in Brief files (whichever supplementary files you would like to include as well as your completed Data in Brief template) into a .zip file and upload this as a Data in Brief item alongside your Additive Manufacturing revised manuscript. Note that only this Data in Brief item will be transferred over to Data in Brief, so ensure all of your relevant Data in Brief documents are zipped into a single file. Also, make sure you change references to supplementary material in your Additive Manufacturing manuscript to reference the Data in Brief article where appropriate.

Questions? Please send your inquiries to dib@elsevier.com. Example Data in Brief can be found here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/23523409

I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript as soon as possible.

Kind regards,

Eric MacDonald
Deputy Editor
Additive Manufacturing

Comments from the editors and reviewers:
-Reviewer 1

  - Dear Authors,

I have read your manuscript with great interest and below are some comments and questions that would need to be addressed before publication. 

The article “Texture Analysis of Additively Manufactured Ti-6Al-4V using Neutron Diffraction” provides pole figures and ODF maps of the alpha and beta phases of EBM and SLM fabricated Ti64.  The authors show that alpha texture weakens with respect to the build angle, and location along the build axis.  The beta phase texture was 10x stronger than the alpha texture; however, the texture is insignificant due to the the low wt.% of the beta phase at room temperature.  In addition it was determined that texture is weaker in the EBM samples compared to the SLM samples.  

The article provides interesting data; however, the results are somewhat challenging to interpret due to poor wording and organization.  Before publication, the paper requires edit/revision by someone proficient in the English language.

Specific comments and questions regarding the text are listed below:

1. There are several research articles regarding texture of AM-fabricated Ti64.  Please cite more of these papers (you only cite one [8]), briefly review their results and state how your research on AM Ti64 texture is different and/or how it contributes new knowledge to the topic.

2. In the Introduction the author says “It was previously shown [8] that processing of Ti-6Al-4V with AM leads to formation of B-phase grains, which can change its mechanical properties.” The meaning of this sentence is not clear.  Is the author talking about the amount of retained beta phase?  or about the prior beta boundaries? The author should re-phrase the sentence, so the meaning is clear.  Also, the use of the citation 8 does not fit the content of the sentence (hopefully it will once the sentence is re-phrased).  

3. In terms of texture analysis, what benefit does neutron scattering provide over XRD or EBSD?  The author mentions that neutron scattering can provide a more macroscopic or 3D view of texture; why is this necessary?

4. Were standard Ti64 parameter sets for the EBM and SLM machine used?  The author should state this in the experimental procedure.  

5. What was the purpose of building wings at 18, 36 and 72 degrees if they were not analyzed (Figure 1)?

6. The author states that the “root samples were used to study the accumulation effects of the texture due to the progressive AM process,” This is not clear.  What is “texture accumulation?” The author might be referring to the effect of thermal cycling on texture?

7. In Table 1, there is one EBM root sample and one SLM root sample, but in the last sentence of the Samples section the author states that a root was collected from “all wings.” Please clarify.

8. Define Biso, Rexp, Rwp and p in the description for table 2; these are not defined anywhere else in the paper.

9. The Grain sizes section does not report the grain size or morphology, it simply shows low-quality SEM images.  The section gives the reader no useful data and can be removed.   

10. On pages 10 and 11 the author reports alpha and beta phase pole figures.  Are the beta phase pole figures showing texture of the retained beta between the alpha phase or a reconstruction of prior beta grain texture?

11. On page 11 the author states that the EBM samples have a weaker texture than the SLM samples.  Explain the reason behind this difference in the discussion.

12. Regarding the last sentence on page 14, Figure 9 does not show an ODF for SLR.  This might be a labeling mistake?

13. On page 16: “texture analysis analysis.” Delete repeated word.

14. The Conclusion contains 6 paragraphs and contains a lot of information that should be moved to the results/discussion section.  The Conclusion should be more concise.  

-Reviewer 2

  -

It is a fair piece of work, but there is place for improvement. The quality of the texture figures (4,5,6,7,9) is very poor on a printed copy; you need to zoom to see something and, when you do that, may have some surprises. For example, looking at fig. 6 you can see a scale going up to a 2.8 value, but in the clear fig. 8 the scale goes to 60 (whatever means that scale). The comments from page 14 seems to confirm those huge values as texture indexes. It is quite unusual to see such values and the authors should double check the quality of the fit, as the peaks of the bcc phase are exceedingly small and superpose on the main phase peaks. It looks like some peaks are completely missing, but that doesn't mean that the sample is hyper textured. I recommend more care in diffraction data interpretation. Relative to the main phase texture, the authors identify at page 11 the main texture component as a <11-20> fiber. The later comments based on ODF sections are not clear in that respect; a volume fraction is reported, which may correspond to the initial fiber, but is not clearly stated. Beside the comments about another minor texture component (2.4%) are not relevant in this contest. Finally, the discussion about the strain from the conclusions should be placed in another chapter; it looks quite far from a conclusion, as the issue was not raised anywhere in the manuscript. The MAUD software used by the authors has some capabilities to treat the elastic strain, including the anisotropy, and that may help to clarify that issue.  

Have questions or need assistance?
For further assistance, please visit our Customer Support site. Here you can search for solutions on a range of topics, find answers to frequently asked questions, and learn more about EVISE® via interactive tutorials. You can also talk 24/5 to our customer support team by phone and 24/7 by live chat and email.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. | Privacy Policy

Elsevier B.V., Radarweg 29, 1043 NX Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Reg. No. 33156677.