Integrating Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing with Additive Manufacturing: A Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper includes certain perspectives in the area of ​​geometric dimensions and tolerances in additive manufacturing. In paper, it is necessary to correct:

1. In keywords write the full name of GD&T.
2. Chapter 6 Standardization of Inspection for AM - I think it should be written there that not only in inspection but in general there is a lack of standardization in the area of ​​dimensional stability and tolerance in the area of ​​additive manufacturing.
3. Authors should also write a paragraph on Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing in assembly parts made by additive manufacturing.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

I would like to express my gratitude for your constructive comments and valuable feedback on the manuscript.  Below, I am providing a response to the comments. All changes are marked in red.  

I have revised the keywords section to include the full name, "Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T)."

I have also revised Chapter 6 to highlight that the lack of standardization extends beyond inspection and encompasses dimensional stability and tolerance aspects across additive manufacturing.

A new section has been added discussing GD&T in AM assembly parts. This section elaborates on how tolerances apply to assemblies and the unique challenges AM presents in ensuring proper mating and functional fits.

I have also added 3 references.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This perspective paper is well written overall. The description of the perspective is concise and logical, and also thought-provoking.

This reviewer is not sure if figures are allowed in a perspective paper, but it would be helpful to have a schematic or chart to illustrate the Adaptation of GD&T principles to Additive Manufacturing. In addition, comparison in surface roughness between traditionally manufactured part and additively manufactured part would be better shown in a figure.

Finally, the GD&T would need to be adapted to different process variants (e.g. PBF and DED) of additive manufacturing for different materials (e.g. metal, polymer and ceramics). This point should be mentioned and discussed in the paper.  

Author Response

Dear reviewer

I would like to express my gratitude for your constructive comments and valuable feedback on the manuscript.  Below, I am providing a response to the comments. All changes are marked in red.  

I have included a conceptual schematic (Figure 1) illustrating the adaptation of GD&T principles to AM, providing a visual representation of key aspects discussed in the text.

I have expanded the discussion in Chapter 7 to specifically address the need for adapting GD&T to different AM process variants, such as Powder Bed Fusion (PBF) and Directed Energy Deposition (DED), and material-specific considerations for metals, polymers, and ceramics.

I have also added 3 references.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Autor,

The general remaks on the Perspective are as follows:

• The Perspective is interesting and generally well-written. It approaches a relatively new domain and reveals that it needs new and adequate means and methods, the old ones being unable to deal properly with the novelty of AM in terms of dimensioning and tolerancing.
• However, ss a general remark, we can say that the way of tolerancing cannot remove the inherent deficiencies of AM. These deficiencies, at least so far, can be accepted if they do not affect the correct working of the part/final product.
• Consider that if the AM process cannot ensure tolerances that comply with the requirements of the part/product, AM either cannot be selected as an appropriate processing or it needs to be followed by another additional manufacturing process.
• Some specific issues that need attention/clarifications or to be corrected are listed in the attached file 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I would like to express my gratitude for your constructive comments and valuable feedback on the manuscript.  Below, I am providing a response to the comments. All changes are marked in red.  

 

I acknowledge your first important point, and I have included a discussion emphasizing that while GD&T can help manage dimensional variability in AM, certain process-induced deficiencies may still be acceptable as long as they do not compromise functional requirements.

I have also added a statement reinforcing that AM must be evaluated for its suitability in meeting required tolerances, and in cases where it falls short, secondary post-processing techniques may be necessary to achieve the desired precision.

Referring to the attached report (PdF) I have added the suggested keywords, corrected the Introduction according to your suggestion, clarified the meaning of anisotropic features and the remaining comments on rows 48-50, 76-77 and 156-159. Moreover, I mentioned Constructive Technological Entity as a way to solve the issue of lack of connectivity between design, simulation and manufacturing. Finally, I explained the use of CT for geometry inspection and for finding possible defects.

I have also added 3 references.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors for their responses and corrections to the paper in accordance with my comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 The author has addressed the reviewer's comments

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

 

I noticed that you addressed properly all my remarks and recommendations, and hence an improvement of the Perspective.

Congratulations