Structural Design and Safety Verification of a Service Hatch Used at Airports by FEM Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

the manuscript concerns the design and FEM analysis of one of the elements of the airport infrastructure. The authors analyzed the relevant European standards for transport safety, an FEM assessment of the manhole cover in the airport infrastructure was carried out. As a result of FEM analyses, elements that have the greatest impact on static safety are also identified, and simulations of load tests for traffic areas have been carried out. Positive results were obtained and it is possible to directly use the hatch in practice, which is an additional value of the presented work.

Despite the high diligence of the authors over the quality of the manuscript, some shortcomings and deficiencies should be supplemented. Detailed comments are presented below:

1. At the end of the introductory part, it was signaled in one sentence what is the purpose of the work. It is worth adding even more details of the test.

2. I also suggest that the authors add information about the content of the work: Section 2 applies, in Section 3 shows, etc.

3. Literature may be somewhat strengthened with the latest reports in the field of air transport safety and the use of FEM analysis in engineering applications, especially in transport. I can propose the following publications in this area:

https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201823602002

https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf /201823602003

10.22616/ERDev.2021.20.TF118

10.1007/978-3-319-50938-9_43

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.105487

https://doi.org/10.29354/diag/122549

https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15186244

https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16020806

https://doi.org/10.3390/met12030429

https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136769

https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136371

4. Lines: 92, 93, 94 the record of the presented units should be improved.

5. Line 138: Bad numbering of the "Load Test of the Hatch" chapter, should be 3.

6. Lines 162-165: badly formatted dependence and no formula numbering.

7. Line 166: Bad numbering of the "Load Test of the Hatch Frame" chapter, should be 4.

8. Line 177: badly formatted dependence and no formula numbering.

9. Figure 10 is incomprehensible, it is worth adding a detail that the authors want to show. Can he mark it with a circle in a different color?

10. Line 183: Bad numbering of the "Hatch Structural Design " chapter, should be 5.

11. Figure 11. Please supplement the description of the drawing and add literalization in the figure a), b), c).

12. Line 204: Bad numbering of the "Results and Discussion" chapter, should be 6.

13. Figures 12, 13 and 14 If possible, please enlarge the legend in the drawings.

14. There is a short summary at the end of the chapter with the results.

15. Line 230: Bad numbering of the "Conclusion" chapter, should be 7.

16. Please adapt to the journal template, table signatures and their format.

In addition to these comments, the manuscript is interesting and correct and it is worth publishing it in the Infrastructure journal.

Thank you

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your review and valuable comments! We have revised the manuscript and the responses to your comments are included below.

Questions:

1. At the end of the introductory part, it was signaled in one sentence what is the purpose of the work. It is worth adding even more details of the test.
2. I also suggest that the authors add information about the content of the work: Section 2 applies, in Section 3 shows, etc.
3. Literature may be somewhat strengthened with the latest reports in the field of air transport safety and the use of FEM analysis in engineering applications, especially in transport. I can propose the following publications in this area:
4. Lines: 92, 93, 94 the record of the presented units should be improved.
5. Line 138: Bad numbering of the "Load Test of the Hatch" chapter, should be 3.
6. Lines 162-165: badly formatted dependence and no formula numbering.
7. Line 166: Bad numbering of the "Load Test of the Hatch Frame" chapter, should be 4.
8. Line 177: badly formatted dependence and no formula numbering.
9. Figure 10 is incomprehensible, it is worth adding a detail that the authors want to show. Can he mark it with a circle in a different color?
10. Line 183: Bad numbering of the "Hatch Structural Design " chapter, should be 5.
11. Figure 11. Please supplement the description of the drawing and add literalization in the figure a), b), c).
12. Line 204: Bad numbering of the "Results and Discussion" chapter, should be 6.
13. Figures 12, 13 and 14 If possible, please enlarge the legend in the drawings.
14. There is a short summary at the end of the chapter with the results.
15. Line 230: Bad numbering of the "Conclusion" chapter, should be 7.

Answers:

1. The conclusion of the introductory part was extended. The details of the test were mentioned in the extension.

2. Some of the images in these sections have been modified and their descriptions have been improved.

3. Some of the given publications were inspirational for us. We also expanded the article with the knowledge we gained from them. Specifically about Publication: 1 2 6 (References number). Thank you very much.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. 12. 15. : All these comments relate to text formatting and editing into the appropriate template or incorrect chapter labelling. All these comments have been incorporated into the article and modified according to your suggestions.

9. The image has been modified to be clearer and easier to understand.

11. The image was supplemented with a description.

13. The legend has been enlarged on all 3 images.

14. The results chapter was expanded and supplemented with more detailed pictures.

We hope that we have modified the article sufficiently to meet your requirements and answer your questions. Thank you very much for your review, which helped us improve the quality of the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. ICAO Annex 14 vol.1, ICAO Doc.9157 and EASA CS-ADR-DSN documents should be used as references for determining the design requirements for the service shaft and the hatch. This should be reflected in the Introduction and in the References list.

2. It must be stated that the hatch can not be used alongside taxiways operated by heavy aircraft - in this case ACN-PCN method described in Annex 14 should be used to determine strength requirements. The featured construction can be used alongside service roads for ground transport in the area of the aerodrome, or alongside taxiways intended only for light aircraft. (applies to fig.1 and the requirement stated on lines 188-190).

3. In general - when imposing some design requirements, the exact standards, these requirements are taken from should be cited, instead of research papers.  These research papers can also be cited, but as an examples of the methodology of applying the standards.

4. The references are listed nor in alphabet nor in 'first appearance in the text' order. The references should be reordered in accordance with the publisher requirements.

5.  The relevance of the cited references should be better explained in the text by pointing the exact passages of the reference that apply to the current research (for instance [5,7] on lines 63,64; [20] on line 198; etc.).

6. No structural safety factor was determined and used in the design verification!?!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your review and valuable comments! We have revised the manuscript and the responses to your comments are included below.

Questions:

1. ICAO Annex 14 vol.1, ICAO Doc.9157 and EASA CS-ADR-DSN documents should be used as references for determining the design requirements for the service shaft and the hatch. This should be reflected in the Introduction and in the References list.
2. It must be stated that the hatch can not be used alongside taxiways operated by heavy aircraft - in this case ACN-PCN method described in Annex 14 should be used to determine strength requirements. The featured construction can be used alongside service roads for ground transport in the area of the aerodrome, or alongside taxiways intended only for light aircraft. (applies to fig.1 and the requirement stated on lines 188-190).
3. In general - when imposing some design requirements, the exact standards, these requirements are taken from should be cited, instead of research papers.  These research papers can also be cited, but as an examples of the methodology of applying the standards.
4. The references are listed nor in alphabet nor in 'first appearance in the text' order. The references should be reordered in accordance with the publisher requirements.
5. The relevance of the cited references should be better explained in the text by pointing the exact passages of the reference that apply to the current research (for instance [5,7] on lines 63,64; [20] on line 198; etc.).
6. No structural safety factor was determined and used in the design verification!?!

Answers:

1. This standard refers to hatches located on the Taxiway. The English were improved in the article and the word service roads were used instead of Taxiway. The error was caused by a bad translation.
2. The comment was incorporated into the article. Lines 62-67, lines 196-198.
3. , 5. Bad references have been fixed. One of them was also excluded. Specifically, it was a quote: Hou, F., Wu, S., Moradi, Z., & Shafiei, N. (2022). The computational modeling for the static analysis of axially functionally graded micro-cylindrical imperfect beam applying the computer simulation. Engineering with Computers, 38(Suppl 4), 3217-3235

Based on the proposed articles from other reviewers, which were reviewed, we expanded the article with new knowledge, which was subsequently also referenced. Specifically, they are references 1, 2, 6.

4. Citations were arranged according to the 'first appearance in the text' order.
5. The safety factor is included in the standard. According to which the hatch is tested.

We hope that we have modified the article sufficiently to meet your requirements and answer your questions. Thank you very much for your review, which helped us improve the quality of the article.

Reviewer 3 Report

I fully read through the paper. There are many corrections that need to be made. Here are my reviews:

1.       If possible, can you please make an extensive English proofreading of this paper?

2.       The descriptions of the figures are too short and not clear to reviewers. I would strongly recommend the authors fix it to make the caption as clear as possible.

3.       The results section is not enough and very unclear to reviewers.

4.       The main result of this paper is just based on the simulation results. Without the comparison to experimental results, it is not convincing to me.

5.       This is not a paper but more like an undergraduate course report. Please make sure the quality of your paper before submission.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your review and valuable comments! We have revised the manuscript and the responses to your comments are included below.

Questions:

1. If possible, can you please make an extensive English proofreading of this paper?
2. The descriptions of the figures are too short and not clear to reviewers. I would strongly recommend the authors fix it to make the caption as clear as possible.
3. The results section is not enough and very unclear to reviewers.
4. The main result of this paper is just based on the simulation results. Without the comparison to experimental results, it is not convincing to me.
5. This is not a paper but more like an undergraduate course report. Please make sure the quality of your paper before submission.

Answers:

1. As much as we tried to accommodate your request, the corrected article was finally checked by MDPI English editors.
2. Based on your suggestion, the description of most of the images was changed/supplemented. Thank you.
3. The result was extended by a more detailed description of the analysis (lines 236 to 241). Two new images were also added, thanks to which the article is more understandable (Figure 13, Figure 14).
4. The FEM analysis was checked by one of the members of the Testing Laboratory. However, as the project is solved in cooperation with the company, certain parts of secrecy. The results in the laboratory were successful. the resulting deflection had only a 4 % deviation from the deflection that was simulated using the ANSYS program. Unfortunately, we cannot publish more detailed information about this test, as a non-disclosure agreement was signed.

I apologize for the large number of formal errors that the first article contained.

We hope that we have modified the article sufficiently to meet your requirements and answer your questions. Thank you very much for your review, which helped us improve the quality of the article.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for making changes to the manuscript in line with my suggestions. The manuscript looks very good now, so I recommend the work for publication in the Infrastructures journal.

Thank you

Author Response

Thank you for your review and valuable comments! 

Thank you very much for your positive review, which helped us improve the quality of the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Generally the reviewer remarks of round 1 are addressed satisfactory.

Not all of the references are in APA style e.g. [14,15]

The results analysis and conclusions sections could be extended by adding discussion about implementing alternative design validation methods and further design optimization.

Author Response

Thank you for your review and valuable comments! We have revised the manuscript and the responses to your comments are included below.

References have been corrected in APA style.
The results analysis and conclusions sections were extended.

We hope that we have modified the article sufficiently to meet your requirements and answer your questions. Thank you very much for your review, which helped us improve the quality of the article.

Reviewer 3 Report

The author corrected all comments. This paper can be accepted in the present format.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your review and valuable comments! We have revised the manuscript. The results analysis and conclusions sections were extended.

We hope that we have modified the article sufficiently to meet your requirements. Thank you very much for your review, which helped us improve the quality of the article.