Next Article in Journal
Study of the Incorporation of Biomass Bottom Ash as a Filler for Discontinuous Grading Bituminous Mixtures with Bitumen Emulsion
Next Article in Special Issue
Lifetime Benefit Analysis of Intelligent Maintenance: Simulation Modeling Approach and Industrial Case Study
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Chronic Exposure to Pesticide Methomyl on Antioxidant Defense System in Testis of Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and Its Recovery Pattern
Previous Article in Special Issue
How to Make Augmented Reality a Tool for Railway Maintenance Operations: Operator 4.0 Perspective
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Need for Ecosystem 4.0 to Support Maintenance 4.0: An Aviation Assembly Line Case

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(8), 3333; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11083333
by Alessandro Giacotto 1, Henrique Costa Marques 1,*, Eduardo Afonso Pereira Barreto 1 and Alberto Martinetti 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(8), 3333; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11083333
Submission received: 12 March 2021 / Revised: 31 March 2021 / Accepted: 5 April 2021 / Published: 8 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Maintenance 4.0 Technologies for Sustainable Manufacturing)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors presented an interesting work. The paper is generally well written with good use of technical language; however, it can be accepted for publication after some concerns being addressed:

Please add references to the following lines/paragraphs:

  • “More demanding than the automotive industry, the aeronautical sector also has higher precision and quality requirements, further increasing technological development for manufacturing through autonomous machines”. Please cite an appropriate reference.
  • The most significant development of automation in the sector consists of drilling and riveting panels for wings and fuselage and transporting large parts for the assembly of aircraft wings and fuselage sections. Please refer to the following references:
    • Aamir, M. Tolouei-Rad, K. Giasin, and A. Nosrati, (2019) Recent advances in drilling of carbon fiber–reinforced polymers for aerospace applications: a review. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 105, 2289-2308.
    • Aamir, K. Giasin, M. Tolouei-Rad, and A. Vafadar, (2020) A review: drilling performance and hole quality of aluminium alloys for aerospace applications. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 9, 12484-12500.

It would be interesting to "open" the contribution of each paper inside the introduction, avoiding lists like [9,10], [6,11], [12]. State of the art may be better described this way.

All the references, which are cited like In [reference] should be replaced with “In author’s name [reference]

Please add a nomenclature that shows all the acronyms, abbreviations etc.

Please provide reasons for why the 379 team size was increased until the point no tasks were cancelled, and, as a result, the OEE 380 increased as shown in Figure 3

Please discuss Figure 4 in more details.

Most importantly, please expand the discussion section with solid reasons and justifications.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thanks for your time and your valuable suggestions.

We tried to address all the points you mentioned.

Please find attached a small summary point-by-point.

1. Please add references to the following lines/paragraphs:

  • “More demanding than the automotive industry, the aeronautical sector also has higher precision and quality requirements, further increasing technological development for manufacturing through autonomous machines”. Please cite an appropriate reference.
  • The most significant development of automation in the sector consists of drilling and riveting panels for wings and fuselage and transporting large parts for the assembly of aircraft wings and fuselage sections. Please refer to the following references:
    • Aamir, M. Tolouei-Rad, K. Giasin, and A. Nosrati, (2019) Recent advances in drilling of carbon fiber–reinforced polymers for aerospace applications: a review. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 105, 2289-2308.
    • Aamir, K. Giasin, M. Tolouei-Rad, and A. Vafadar, (2020) A review: drilling performance and hole quality of aluminium alloys for aerospace applications. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 9, 12484-12500.

It would be interesting to "open" the contribution of each paper inside the introduction, avoiding lists like [9,10], [6,11], [12]. State of the art may be better described this way.

All the references have been added to the paper, trying to enlarge the state of the art and open the contribution of each paper (line 104-112).

2. Please add a nomenclature that shows all the acronyms, abbreviations etc.

A table with abbreviations has been added to the end of the paper (line 488)

3. Please provide reasons for why the 379 team size was increased until the point no tasks were cancelled, and, as a result, the OEE 380 increased as shown in Figure 3. Please discuss Figure 4 in more details.

An explanation paragraph has been added in the discussion (line 458-467) in order to better point out the team size and to better discuss figure 4.

5. Most importantly, please expand the discussion section with solid reasons and justifications.

The discussion session has been enlarged as well to better point out the limitations of the study (line 424-433).

 

We hope to have addressed your major concerns. We remain at your disposal to discuss further improvements if necessary.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has several issues which have to be improved. Here are my suggestions to the authors:

  1. Introduction: The introduction is not well written. In the introduction (or in other section) has to be clearly defined the novelty of the paper. You have to emphasize the contribution of the paper. One thing is what was done in the paper and second thing is the contribution of the paper in comparison with state of the art in this area. So, please express the contribution and novelty exactly.
  2. Figure 2 - the quality of the figure is low.
  3. Page 7. How is set objective function? What about different objective functions for this purposes ? Please, defend these mathematical relations.
  4. Conclusion: The similar issue like in the first point. The conclusion has to contain exactly expressed contribution of your research. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for the time spent in correcting our paper and providing us with important feedback to rise the quality of our work.

Here below, we try to point-by-point address your comments:

1. Introduction: The introduction is not well written. In the introduction (or in other section) has to be clearly defined the novelty of the paper. You have to emphasize the contribution of the paper. One thing is what was done in the paper and second thing is the contribution of the paper in comparison with state of the art in this area. So, please express the contribution and novelty exactly.

The introduction has been enriched with important new references and a new section (line 104-112) in order to prodive more clear focus and more connection to the state of the art.

2. Figure 2 - the quality of the figure is low.

A new figure has been uploaded with a better quality.

3. Page 7. How is set objective function? What about different objective functions for this purposes ? Please, defend these mathematical relations.

A new paragraph has been added at page 7 (line 263-272) in order to justify better the mathematical model and to clarify the relations included in the study.

4. Conclusion: The similar issue like in the first point. The conclusion has to contain exactly expressed contribution of your research

As for the introduction discussion and conclusion have been revised in order to make clearer the contribution of the research, clarifying the contribution and the novelty of the work (line 424-440; line 480-487).

Hoping to have addressed the major concerns, we remain to your disposal for further clarifications.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All the comments are addressed and the paper is accepted in the current form. Thanks

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your responses. The papaer has been improved. I have not any other questions.

Back to TopTop