Additive vs. Conventional Manufacturing of Metal Components: Selection of the Manufacturing Process Using the AHP Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

you did a good job, but my remarks are as follows:

Please improve Abstract by adding the conclusions. Also, I suggest to highlight the major findings and novelties introduced.

I suggest to apply your model on more significant tests/examples that those proposed in the manuscript. Namely, you should allow the reader to see the model in action by applying it to an adequate case, and compare the results with already available solutions.

Best regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is focused on development of method for selection of manufacturing procedure – conventional or AM. The Authors team consist of specialists of data processing as well as AM, thus all necessary knowledge and competences were ensured. The presented topic is quite important issue nowadays, while companies involve AM more often in their productions. Authors proposed the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method for evaluation and comparison of conventional manufacturing with AM to support decision process. They decided to define four areas – Layers of the AHP – defining the framework, assignment of the criteria, processing of AHP and review the results. Further the proposed methodology was used to analyze two cases – production of the control unit housing and metal flat gasket. The antiplagiarism software confirmed that the paper is new and unique.

The AHP was used earlier by other scientists in AM area, hovewer in different approach. The quite similar to the article topic was studies of R. Muvunzi et al. (An Evaluation Model for Selecting Part Candidates for Additive Manufacturing in the Transport Sector, Metals 2021, 11, 765) where the AHP methodology was used for selection of automotive parts, which should/could be produced using AM (by the way – I am surprised that Authors didn’t mentioned about this studies in the Introduction section – should be supplemented). However, as Authors underlined – their proposal is holistic and developed to support decision of the producer. This is the novelty of the presented approach. In my opinion the developed methodology is not very difficult and may be used in companies interested in introduction of AM to their facilities. Taking into account current interest in AM in global industry as well as complex development of AHP model supported by examples I recommend publication of the article after minor revision. Please find my other comments below:

 

1.       The title is too long – “Additive vs. Conventional Manufacturing of Metal Components – Selection of the Manufacturing Process Using the AHP Method” is sufficient.

2.       Abstract – should be Analytical or Analytic instead Analytica

3.       General comment – some sections of the paper are too long and should be edited to make the paper more clear.

The introduction should be shorter – please edit this section. There is a large part about L-PBF and its characteristic (lines 40-83). It’s not general objective of the article – this method was used in examples. It may be compressed in few sentences that AM, including L-PBF, may be competitive to conventional methods, as produced elements can have the same or better properties and support it with literature citations. However, it should be clear why you describe L-BPF – I suggest to expand the sentence in line 40 ”Within those process, Laser-Powered Bed Fusion […] technology, thus it was selected for comparison with conventional method in this article”.  The Figure 1 is only different visualization of sentences from the lines 145-149. Moreover, the idea of the article is clear, so Figure 1 is not necessary and may be removed.

The Materials & Methods section – In this part of the article Authors present approach to selection of APH method on basis of literature overview - it could be also compressed without impact on presented studies. The Figure 2 seems to be also duplication of information from the lines 183-216 and is not necessary. Similar situation is with the Table 1, which is duplicate of text from lines 217-223. However, in the case of Table 1, in my opinion, the presentation in the table is more legible than the description in the text. Thus the lines 217-223 may be replaced by short sentence that the Table 1 is an overview of the relevant publications. It will be also beneficial for the article layout if the data in the table will be organized (e.g. by the year of publication or citation number).

There are some very similar sentences, these occur in few parts of the text (e.g. definition of PL in lines 139, 281, 636). Please check the entire paper and remove not necessary or doubled sentences.

 

4.       General comment – please check decimal and thousands separators in numbers in the whole paper. In some sections Authors used comma and in other dots. It should be consistent with the GB/US-English standard.

 

5.       Line 323 – please use full name Internet of Things instead IoT, as it is used only once in the paper.

 

6.       Line 427 – double dot

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

thanks for accepting my suggestion to improve the Abstract. Also, I would like to thank for explanation regarding the practical applications of your model.

Best regards