Study on Sustainable Lightweight Design of Airport Waiting Chair Frame Structure Based on ANSYS Workbench
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript titled "Study on sustainable lightweight design of airport waiting for chair frame structure based on ANSYS Workbench" primarily relies on well-established methods such as finite element analysis and topology optimization without introducing any novel techniques or applications, which might not meet the originality criteria required by top-tier journals. Secondly, the paper does not sufficiently demonstrate how its findings significantly impact broader sustainability goals, such as notable reductions in energy use or carbon emissions, which limits its perceived relevance and impact. Lastly, there are methodological gaps, notably the absence of rigorous validation of the computational models against real-world data. This lack of validation raises doubts about the reliability of the results and their practical applicability, undermining the study's contributions to the field. These issues collectively suggest that the manuscript might not provide enough value to the academic community for publication in a high-impact journal.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe title and abstract are consistent with the issues described. The layout of the content and its content in individual chapters are correct. Properly chosen literature references are included in the introduction. The research methodology and tools were adequately selected. The sufficiently detailed testing concerned 9 different sizes of chair frames, in which the seat support strip thickness, backrest strip thickness, and seat panel thickness were subject to changes. The conducted research, mathematical models and optimization are described in detail, the results of which are presented with great care in the form of tables and figures. Achieved improvements were proposed. As a result of the use of the structural optimization method, it was possible to achieve design goals related to the effective use of resources and environmental protection, including reducing the mass of frame. Conclusions are presented appropriately to the content.
Detailed notes:
Lines 36, 39, 42 and others: no space before the bracket.
Line 18: The period ending the sentence should be placed after the bracket (not before it).
Line 66: The sentence starting with "Huang..." is unclear.
Table 1 Consider whether a table is necessary to describe just one material.
Line 310. The caption of the drawing should be corrected (once there is Figure, and then Fig.)
Line 418: Title of chapter 4.3. should start with a capital letter.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAdd more introduction about challenges faced by current airport waiting chairs and how the innovation in this paper addresses those issues.
The language needs to be polished thoroughly for the whole paper, such as ‘there is no easy to grasp and operate the accurate design analysis method’.
Add more references about lightweight design, such as ‘Advances and trends in forming curved extrusion profiles’, ‘Advanced design for lightweight structures: Review and prospects’, ‘Advances on manufacture methods for wide lightweight aluminium stiffened panels’.
More detailed reasoning behind the selection of specific dimensions and parameters for the orthogonal experiments would be beneficial.
Providing more information on the selection of the testing program, and the validation of the simulation would enhance the credibility of the results. Discussing potential sources of error and how they were mitigated would also be valuable.
The discussion could be expanded to include more practical implications of the findings, particularly in terms of manufacturing and cost savings.
The conclusion could provide more specific recommendations for future research, such as exploring other materials or further optimizing the design. Discussing the potential for scalability and real-world application would also be beneficial.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language needs to be polished thoroughly for the whole paper, such as ‘there is no easy to grasp and operate the accurate design analysis method’.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has revised the manuscript well; therefore, I recommend to accept in its current form.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor needed during production time.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt can be accepted now
