Next Article in Journal
Occurrence of Zearalenone and Enniatin B in Swiss Wheat Grains and Wheat Flours
Next Article in Special Issue
Dynamic IoT Malware Detection in Android Systems Using Profile Hidden Markov Models
Previous Article in Journal
Emerging Biomedical Applications of Carbon Dot and Polymer Composite Materials
Previous Article in Special Issue
Reliability Modelling Considering Self-Exciting Mechanisms of Shock Damage
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Spare Parts Made by Additive Manufacturing to Improve Preventive Maintenance

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(20), 10564; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122010564
by René Lastra 1,*, Alejandro Pereira 2, Miguel Díaz-Cacho 3, Jorge Acevedo 4 and Antonio Collazo 5
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(20), 10564; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122010564
Submission received: 29 September 2022 / Revised: 14 October 2022 / Accepted: 14 October 2022 / Published: 19 October 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript presents a methodology and the results of a case study regarding the application of additive manufacturing to produce spare parts in preventive maintenance in automotive manufacturing industry.

The manuscript is written in great detail and can be a good reference for the readers who are interested in this topic.

Some suggestions below are provided for the authors to improve the manuscript:

1. The English writing is fair, but is still needed to be carefully reedited and revised. There are some grammatical errors throughout the manuscript needed to be corrected.

2. Lines 171-175: Since they are written right below Equation 1, they should be used to explain something appeared in Equation 1. However, are A1 (Line 173), RT (Line 174) and PT (Line 175) relevant to Equation 1?

3. Table 4 is not mentioned in the text, and please correct. In addition, it is not standard that Table 6 is cited before Table 5 in the text. Tables must be cited in numerical order in the text.

4. Similarly, Figures 5 and 10 are not mentioned in the text, and please correct. In addition, figures must be cited in numerical order in the text.

5. The meanings of the mathematical symbols appeared in Table 4 must be explained.

6. Please replace the term “case of study” with “case study”.

7. The last bullet point in the Conclusions section must be deleted.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:
The authors appreciate your suggestions, with the aim of improving the quality of the text. Please find attached the modified text and the suggested revisions. 
Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a good and interesting paper, and the presented results might broaden our understanding of the studied field. As such, the reviewer recommends publication of this work after a minor revision:

(1) Some sentences are too long, and cannot be followed: It has been based on an initial inventory from which a series of lists have been obtained that have been categorized, in order to know the technical and economic applicability of replacement of polymeric spare parts by parts made of AM in polyamide material (PA12) by two manufacturing methods (HP MultiJet and Selective laser sintering technology, SLS).

(2) Some conclusions are redundant!: This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:
The authors appreciate your suggestions, with the aim of improving the quality of the text. Please find attached the modified text and the suggested revisions. 
Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper reports on

This research work is aimed at finding out the applicability of additive manufacturing (AM) to spare parts in automotive manufacturing industry, specifically in the field of preventive maintenance. A procedure of AM applicability to preventive maintenance is presented. To this end, the results of the application of a case that has been carried out in the Stellantis factory located in Vigo (Spain) area have been obtained. It has been based on an initial inventory from which a series of lists have been obtained that have been categorized, in order to know the technical and economic applicability of replacement of polymeric spare parts by parts made of AM in polyamide material (PA12) by two manufacturing methods (HP MultiJet and Selective laser sintering technology, SLS). Original spare parts have been characterized and compared with replacement parts made in AM. This article provides observations, recommendations, and conclusions to summarize the situation regarding the use of AM techniques to improve preventive maintenance

The paper is looking good but need to address the following points

1.     Figure 3 quality is not good and also not some text is not visible

2.     Figure 7 quality is also not good

3.     Figure 10 quality is also not good

4.     Based on your novelty make a comparison table with literature to prove your work is better

5.     Check paper for grammar and spelling mistakes

6.     Some references are old and need to be updated

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:
The authors appreciate your suggestions, with the aim of improving the quality of the text. Please find attached the modified text and the suggested revisions. 
Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors investigated the incorporation of additive manufacturing for preventive maintenance of industrial spares. The authors need to resolve few minor issues before considering for possible publication. 

1) The authors should clarify whether is it printed spart 1 & 2 (or) printed part 1 & 2 in figure 2

2) The abbreviation for Decision Support System is termed as DDS 

3) Figure 3 is not clear enough, I am suggesting the authors to improve the image quality 

4) why this statement in the conclusion "This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex "

5) Please proofread the manuscript for a conclusive quality check.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:
The authors appreciate your suggestions, with the aim of improving the quality of the text. Please find attached the modified text and the suggested revisions. 
Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

1) The authors still haven't changed the Printed Spart to the Printed part in figure 2 (Please see the printed spart inside the blue box).

2) I guess it should be DSS please change to DSS in line 105 and 531 in the abbreviation section.

3) Figure 3 still the font size should be improved for clarity. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have implemented all your revisions.
We have modified fig. 2, changing Printed Spart to Printed Part.
We have modified fig. 3 to make it clearer.
We have also improved the quality of fig. 4.
We have also changed in line 104 and in the abbreviations section the expression DSS.
Finally we have made a revision of all the bibliographic sources.
Thank you very much for your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop