Next Article in Journal
Two-Stage Production System Pondering upon Corporate Social Responsibility in Food Supply Chain: A Case Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Detecting Underground Geospatial Features for Protection of Rights in 3D Space: Korean Cases
Previous Article in Journal
Authorization Mechanism Based on Blockchain Technology for Protecting Museum-Digital Property Rights
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Energy-Aware Multi-UAV Dispatch and Handoff Algorithm for Maximizing the Event Communication Time in Disasters
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Effect of Lap Length and Stiffness of Peel-Stop Fasteners in Single Lap Joints

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(3), 1086; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11031086
by Atsushi Takano *, Chao Li and Ryuta Kitamura
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(3), 1086; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11031086
Submission received: 17 December 2020 / Revised: 16 January 2021 / Accepted: 19 January 2021 / Published: 25 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Selected Papers from IMETI 2020)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper is interesting, especially for specific group of engineers, but I am missing some hypothesis or scientific question where paper is focused on. Conducted experimental measurement is well descibed but can be extended with simulation and some generalised results. 

In Discusion chapter, I am missing better generalised explanation why some solution is better than the others.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents a study on the effect of lap length and stiffness of the peel-stop fasteners in adhesive joints with mechanical fasteners. Overall, the objectives of the paper are clear, the methods used are proper, the results obtained have been presented, and some useful conclusions have been drawn. However, some revisions must be made before the paper can be accepted.

  1. The literature review in the introduction section is not sufficient as required by the Journal peer-review requirement. Currently they are only 11 references and all of them are not related to research background. The authors should introduce the relevant research background before introducing the development of adhesive joints with mechanical fasteners. Under which background were these joints developed?

The authors could begin with:

Mechanical fasteners using bolt-nut connections face the problems of loosening clamping force and fatigue strength due to the spiral shape of the bolt-nut thread, wherein high stress concentration factor occurs at the first bot thread [Composites Part B 82 (2015) 13-22] and the load distribution in threads are uneven. Slight pitch differences have to be introduced to improve fatigue strength and anti-loosening [Composite Structures 134 (2015) 680-688]. Also, for conventional mechanical joints using pure metal fasteners, there could be a problem of heat shorts on the fuselage structure [Ceramics International 42 (2016) 1416-1424]. Adhesive bonding has the advantage of not weakening the components to be joined, however, their stiffness and reliability are generally not as high as the mechanical fasteners.

Then introduce the development of adhesive joints with mechanical fasteners:

Adhesive joints with mechanical fasteners are often used aircraft and space vehicle structures for their high stiffness and reliability. Mechanical fasteners are used on adhesive joints to prevent bending failures due to offset loads and peel failures on the adhesives.

  1. Results and discussion:

The results can be presented more clearly, e.g., Fig. 10, 12, 14, 16, more information can be added to these figures, so that readers can get the results without referring to the context. Which group uses brass bolts? And Nylon bolts? These should be clearly indicated in the Figure.

The authors have obtained quite a lot of results, however, the discussion is quite short.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has now been greatly improved.

Just few typos should be revised:

Line 83, ‘bot’ should be ‘bolt’.

In the ‘References’ section, for all the Refs, ‘;’ should not be used for the last author, only ‘.’ should be there.

In Refs. 12 and 14, please use subscript for the number 2 in ZrO2. Also, remove ‘Part B’ in Ref. 14.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop