Next Article in Journal
The Path from Green Innovation to Supply Chain Resilience: Do Structural and Dynamic Supply Chain Complexity Matter?
Next Article in Special Issue
Determination of Ship Collision Avoidance Timing Using Machine Learning Method
Previous Article in Journal
Towards Just Energy Transition: Renewable Energy Transition Dynamics and Sectorial Employment in Ghana
Previous Article in Special Issue
Dependence of Ships Turning at Port Turning Basins on Clearance under the Ship’s Keel
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of an Innovative Additive Manufacturing Technique for Onboard Maintenance

Sustainability 2024, 16(9), 3763; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093763
by Ioannis Falkonakis 1, Saeid Lotfian 1,* and Baran Yeter 2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Reviewer 4: Anonymous
Sustainability 2024, 16(9), 3763; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093763
Submission received: 6 March 2024 / Revised: 17 April 2024 / Accepted: 27 April 2024 / Published: 30 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Maritime Transportation)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 Thank you very much for bringing this topic of implementing AM in onboard settings targeting vessel maintenance.

 Concerning the article, there are two major fundamental aspects that should require a deeper study and analysis, which are the following:

 (1)   Additive Manufacturing is a very broad field. It encompasses dozens of different technologies. Attempting to base a study on metals vs. polymers (plus metal+polymer and none) is just an oversimplification of the reality. In this sense, the alternatives offered in table 3 are a too narrow look to be representative for the reality. Which technology is being used in each case? What equipment is considered? What are the context circumstances (e.g.: metal handling safety hazards) are to be regarded? And linked to this, How are the Machine costs considered (The figures utilised will have little meaning as standalone, also knowing that the human factor will be very different within)? And what about the operations for post processing (simply saying CNC is not enough for a matter that could be even broader than the previous one? All this should be very carefully studied for the analysis to be meaningful.

 (2)   This journal is “Sustainability”, which is a journal for “environmental, cultural, economic and social sustainability of human beings”. Although there is a sustainability trace in the article, the focus is very weak and therefore the match should be addressed.

 Concerning formatting and other issues, it is noted the following:

- Table 2 is included, but it is not analysed in the text (and it should)

- Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 have a too low resolution when maximised and should be regenerated

- Table 3 includes a weighting system that is not duly explained. (How is it chosen each of the values?)

- Figure 8 misses the identification of the values (central, max, min) for each type, and the caption and units in the Y axis

- Actually, Figure 9 is not a figure but a table with an incorrect format. And the content is not a SWOT analysis.

 Hoping that this will help improving the article and eventually the number citations received.

Regards,

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript. We submit our modified manuscript now entitled “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of an Innovative Additive Manufacturing Technique for Onboard Maintenance” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2927850). We carefully considered all comments offered by the respected reviewer. Herein, we explain how we revised the manuscript based on those comments and recommendations.

The detailed corrections are listed below point-by-point and presented in blue colour in the main text for the sake of clarity and easier catching of the points.

We hope that these revisions improve the manuscript so that you now deem it worthy of publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines the challenges of accessing spare parts in the maritime industry, primarily due to the geographical distance of vessels from suppliers and limited delivery times. It proposes the use of advanced manufacturing techniques, specifically Direct Energy Deposition (DED) and Computer Numerical Control (CNC), as a solution to improve access to spare parts at sea by leveraging their material properties, flexibility, and precision. The research evaluates the feasibility of implementing these techniques onboard as a capital investment, comparing it to the traditional approach without onboard manufacturing. A Technique to Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) analysis is employed to navigate the techno-economic considerations and uncertainties inherent in this novel research area. The paper concludes by discussing the challenges and opportunities of onboard maintenance through additive manufacturing, positioning it as a critical component for the sustainable future of maritime and offshore energy assets.

To enhance the comprehensive understanding and impact of the study, several questions and recommendations are suggested, particularly focusing on the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) section. The study should elaborate on why the Technique to Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) was chosen over other MCDA methods such as RANCOM, SPOTIS, SIMUS, or ESP-COMET. A brief characterization and justification of the chosen method should be provided after discussing the background these alternative methods could offer. Furthermore, the rationale behind selecting vector normalization as a technique in the analysis needs clarification. Finally, it is recommended to expand the section on future research directions. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript. We submit our modified manuscript now entitled “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of an Innovative Additive Manufacturing Technique for Onboard Maintenance” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2927850). We carefully considered all comments offered by the respected reviewer. Herein, we explain how we revised the manuscript based on those comments and recommendations.

The detailed corrections are listed below point-by-point and presented in blue colour in the main text for the sake of clarity and easier catching of the points.

We hope that these revisions improve the manuscript so that you now deem it worthy of publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article discusses the challenges faced in the maritime industry regarding access to spare parts throughout the life cycle of a ship. It highlights the limitations caused by geographical distance from suppliers and the often-limited turnaround time for parts delivery. Additionally, it mentions the possibility of manufacturing some parts onboard but acknowledges that it is a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. Finally, it discusses the challenges, opportunities and potential pathway to onboard maintenance using additive manufacturing within the context of achieving a sustainable future for ships and offshore energy assets. This article is relevant for publication, but some issues need further clarification before publication.

My observations and suggestions that should be taken into account:

  1. What training or educational programmes are available to prepare engineers onboard for working with additive manufacturing technology onboard ships?
  2. The results of TOPSIS analysis should be discussed further. It is not clear how changes in criteria weights and performance scores affect preference scores and ranking of different alternatives. Discuss the implications of these changes on the overall evaluation of additive manufacturing options on board.
  3. Could you provide more details about the advantages and disadvantages of onboard additive manufacturing for the environment, particularly how it can lower carbon emissions, reduce waste, and increase sustainability in the marine sector?
  4. Are optical 3D printing, such as DLP or SLA, used for additive manufacturing in ships?

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript. We submit our modified manuscript now entitled “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of an Innovative Additive Manufacturing Technique for Onboard Maintenance” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2927850). We carefully considered all comments offered by the respected reviewer. Herein, we explain how we revised the manuscript based on those comments and recommendations.

The detailed corrections are listed below point-by-point and presented in blue colour in the main text for the sake of clarity and easier catching of the points.

We hope that these revisions improve the manuscript so that you now deem it worthy of publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript on the topic "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of an Innovative Additive Manufacturing Technique for Onboard Maintenance" is an interesting scientific work and a good overview and analysis of difficult problems for marine vessels. However, the work requires improvement in the following:

1)      Table 1 should be placed in paragraph 1 and in this version, it is difficult to read. In the first line, the column with the link [36] shifted. The authors can try rotating the entire table 1 by 90 degrees clockwise (all text should be placed horizontally). Replace check marks with pluses.

2)      For some reason, the authors omit a very important risk factor in the event of a failure of the equipment itself for additive operations. Also, risks from defects in manufactured products are not taken into account.

3)      When designing ships, for all important structures and apparatus, the risks of failure, the probability of failure and the service life are calculated for them, after which they must be replaced with new ones. Then the importance of introducing such expensive and sophisticated equipment is not entirely clear...For me, additive technologies are, for example, when a complex-shaped prosthesis is made from a magnesium alloy, and for this product it is important that it is done in this way, because there is a lot of complex geometry in its design…The authors need to emphasize this point in the introduction of the manuscript...How complex is the design of manufactured products for ships in order to reasonably introduce additive technologies?

4)      Data shown in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 are difficult to read, I recommend replacing the figures with regular tables.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript. We submit our modified manuscript now entitled “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of an Innovative Additive Manufacturing Technique for Onboard Maintenance” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2927850). We carefully considered all comments offered by the respected reviewer. Herein, we explain how we revised the manuscript based on those comments and recommendations.

The detailed corrections are listed below point-by-point and presented in blue colour in the main text for the sake of clarity and easier catching of the points.

We hope that these revisions improve the manuscript so that you now deem it worthy of publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for your extensive work.

Following to a visit to the document in the present state, please address the issues listed below:

- Address further how safety is regarded in the study (What it is taken into account and how is it tackled) 

- Include the weighting table ellaboration as a supplementary data/annex

- Rework table 1, the first row is not readable

- Solve issue in line 325 (reference source not found)

Hoping this will be good for ensuring a better positioning and impact of the paper,

Best regards,

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript. We submit our modified manuscript now entitled “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of an Innovative Additive Manufacturing Technique for Onboard Maintenance” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2927850). We carefully considered all comments offered by the reviewer. Herein, we explain how we revised the manuscript based on those comments and recommendations. We want to extend our appreciation to reviewer for taking the time and effort necessary to provide such insightful guidance.

The detailed corrections are listed below point-by-point and presented in Red colour in the main text for the sake of clarity and easier catching of the points.

We hope that these revisions improve the manuscript so that you now deem it worthy of publication. Next, we offer detailed responses to all reviewers’ comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I must respectfully disagree with the authors, particularly concerning Point No. 2. It appears that there is a misunderstanding about Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) on the part of the authors. In the paper, they mention the use of min-max normalization; however, the flowchart illustrates vector normalization, indicating a possible discrepancy in their methodology.

What would I recommend? Firstly, I suggest a thorough check of the calculations. Next, it would be beneficial for the authors to provide a rationale for their choice of normalization methods. Referencing resources such as the Springer Professional article on the importance of normalization techniques in decision making could be enlightening (https://www.springerprofessional.de/en/why-does-the-choice-of-normalization-technique-matter-in-decisio/20131824).

Moreover, the paper could benefit from a clearer explanation of why the authors opted for a method that has been in existence for over 40 years. It would be constructive if the authors could compare their chosen method with newer methodologies, such as COMET or SPOTIS, highlighting the simplicity or the use of more characteristic values of their chosen method. These aspects should be thoroughly discussed, as they are crucial for understanding the paper's contributions to the field.

By addressing these points and incorporating the feedback from previous comments, I believe the paper would significantly improve and merit consideration for acceptance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript. We submit our modified manuscript now entitled “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of an Innovative Additive Manufacturing Technique for Onboard Maintenance” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2927850). We carefully considered all comments offered by the reviewer. Herein, we explain how we revised the manuscript based on those comments and recommendations. We want to extend our appreciation to reviewer for taking the time and effort necessary to provide such insightful guidance.

The detailed corrections are listed below point-by-point and presented in Red colour in the main text for the sake of clarity and easier catching of the points.

We hope that these revisions improve the manuscript so that you now deem it worthy of publication. Next, we offer detailed responses to all reviewers’ comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with the answers. I agree for publishing.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript. We submit our modified manuscript now entitled “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of an Innovative Additive Manufacturing Technique for Onboard Maintenance” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2927850). We carefully considered all comments offered by the reviewer. Herein, we explain how we revised the manuscript based on those comments and recommendations. We want to extend our appreciation to reviewer for taking the time and effort necessary to provide such insightful guidance.

The detailed corrections are listed below point-by-point and presented in Red colour in the main text for the sake of clarity and easier catching of the points.

We hope that these revisions improve the manuscript so that you now deem it worthy of publication. Next, we offer detailed responses to all reviewers’ comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been improved and can be acccepted in its current form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None

Back to TopTop