Comprehensive and Comparative Heat Treatment of Additively Manufactured Inconel 625 Alloy and Corresponding Microstructures and Mechanical Properties

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with  Vickers microindentation hardness, and mechanical properties for additively manufactured (AM) samples built by a variety of AM processes: wire arc AM (WAAM), electron beam powder – bed fusion (EB-PBF), laser-wire direct energy deposition (LW-DED), electron beam direct energy deposition (EB-DED), laser powered di-16 rect energy deposition (LP-DED), and laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF).

·         The recent Works about additive and hear treatment are making big steps ahead, such as those by On the relationship between cutting forces and anisotropy features in the milling of LPBF Inconel 718 for near net shape parts, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 170, 103801 in this case is 718 but you can Applied it directly to your 625. See that anisotropy is affected or not by hear treatment) and moreover, Vickers values can change a lot. Please introduce the discussion.

·         Hot isostatic pressing (HIP) can make distortions not aceptable. Please discuss this as well. For instance in Hybrid manufacturing of complex components: Full methodology including laser metal deposition (LMD) module development, cladding geometry estimation and case study validation, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 179, 109337 ecntly published it was disregard as main source of uncertainty.

·         Figure 2 is nice…is it yours?

·         Tensile test ASTM E8-21, Ok, but the tespieces must be extracted in several directions? Fortunately, you relate with table 3 the metal structures

·         SUMARY: GOOD ORK, INCLUDE ANISTROPHY AND ABPVE IDEAS IN NEXT VERSION, AND THE LITS OF REFERENCES NEEDS the more recen tones.

·         The way of dealing with complex pieces is also worked in Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 168, 108675 stiffening can be a Good idea.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. In Section 2.1, HIP treatment was set as 3 to 4 hours. Why isn't the time a specific value? Different time settings for samples?

2. There are some typos. For example, in Section 2.2, the size of diamond slurries is 6 m, 3 m and 1 m. Is um the correct size? The authors mentioned Table 4 several times. However, there are only 3 tables in the manuscript. Not limited to these typos. It may be better to find more people to revise basic language errors.

3. In Section 3.3, the authors addressed dimple size decreases with decreasing grain size and yield strength [18,19]. However, the trend in Fig.14 is not quite obvious. In general, the yield strength increases with decreasing grain size (Hall-Petch relationship). In reference 19, the results also follow the Hall-Petch relationship.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the authors for their attention to the reviewer comments.