Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Additive or Conventional Process Selection in the Preliminary Design Phase

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript comprehensively analyzes various aspects of manufacturing processes and their implications on product performance and efficiency. While the study presents valuable insights, several issues need to be addressed to enhance the clarity and depth of the research before it can be considered for publication.

(1) When discussing the applicability of PBF-LB/M processes, only material changes are mentioned without exploring their impact on final product performance (Page 10, Paragraph 2, Lines 311-314). It is suggested that a detailed analysis of how material changes affect mechanical performance and cost be included.

(2) The calculation of material waste needs a detailed comparison between different manufacturing processes (Page 12, Paragraph 1, Lines 358-370). Consider analyzing waste types in various processes, such as support structure waste in additive manufacturing versus chip waste in traditional manufacturing.

(3) The section on energy consumption provides estimates for different processes but needs specific measurement methods or data sources (Page 14, Paragraph 1, Lines 394-431). To enhance credibility, it is recommended to include experimental data or cite specific studies supporting these estimates.

(4) The results and discussion sections need to be clearly separated, leading to potential confusion (Page 14, Paragraph 3, Lines 444-450). It would be beneficial to separate these sections for clarity distinctly.

(5) In the analysis following topology optimization, while mass and energy consumption reductions are mentioned, their effects on overall production efficiency and cost are not detailed (Page 17, Paragraph 2, Lines 508-511). Consider providing a quantitative analysis of improvements in production efficiency and cost savings.

(6)The conclusions are general and lack a specific summary of findings and recommendations for future research (Page 18, Paragraph 1, Lines 534-571). A more precise conclusion would strengthen the manuscript.

(7)It is recommended that the conclusion be listed in items so that readers can understand the main conclusions of this paper more clearly and quickly; in addition, discussion content and references should not appear in the conclusion(Page 18, Paragraph 4, Lines 571).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article examines the principles of decision-making at the stage of choosing the production methods for a structure. The authors compare traditional methods with additive technologies in the manuscript.

The article will be of interest to readers, since it is devoted to a very popular topic. I have several comments and remarks for the authors of the manuscript.

1. I recommend that the authors of the work formulate the purpose of the study more clearly, noting its scientific novelty. I recommend avoiding references to articles from the Reference in the purpose of the study.

2. I recommend shortening the Conclusions of the study and making them more specific.

3. In my opinion, the structure of the description of the research methods and results of the study is poorly constructed. It is very difficult to grasp the logic of the study. I recommend that the authors structure the description of the studies more logically, using the description traditional for MDPI journals (3. Results; 4. Discussion).

4. I recommend that the authors of the manuscript avoid referring to articles from the Reference in the Conclusions of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is devoted to hybrid multi-criteria decision making for selecting an additive or traditional process at the preliminary design stage. The methodology was tested using a case study - an aerospace bracket. The candidates for manufacturing the bracket were CNC machining, high-pressure die casting and PBF-LB/M. Manufacturing the bracket by AM turned out to be the optimal choice for a small production batch. In addition, the study emphasized the importance of material selection, process design guidelines and production batch in the context of an informed process choice.

However, there are some comments on the work:

1. The Abstract section needs to be rewritten, reflecting the relevance of the problem to be solved and the scientific novelty of the obtained solution.

2. The keywords need to be adjusted by removing "Process selection" and adding specific terms characterizing the study.

3. The introduction should indicate the novelty of the research being conducted. At the end of the introduction, it is necessary to define the purpose of the scientific research and provide a detailed structure of the article with a presentation of the problems to be solved in the following sections.

4. The introduction and further in the text of the work include the phrase "reliability of the results". Qualitative or quantitative assessments of the solutions obtained should be provided.

5. What characteristics of structural reliability and safety do the authors consider significant in the work?

6. Figure 1 is too distant from its first mention in the text.

7. Figure 4 is qualitative in nature. Quantitative assessments of the presented characteristic should be provided.

8. The list of cited sources should include more modern publications on the study of the strength and reliability of materials.

9. The results of experiments or modeling by other authors should be provided to confirm the adequacy of the production process for the specific considered scenarios of parts processing.

10. Conclusions must be structured, highlighting the main scientific and especially practical results obtained, strengthening them with the obtained numerical characteristics, as well as recommendations for designers and mechanical engineers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors explained their decision to structure the manuscript. Some of my comments were taken into account and the authors made corrections to the manuscript. I can recommend this manuscript for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is done at a fairly good level. The authors have revised the article. The article can be published. Authors should not only give detailed answers to the reviewer, but also highlight the corrections in the article file.