Methodology for Evaluating the Performance Data of Practical Honeycomb Fairing
Gaetano Currao
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract appropriately summarize the paper.
Keywords are appropriate.
Introduction is correct.
Denoting the measurement of the value of the electric field and the modulus of elasticity with the letter E in the same text is neither correct nor permissible.
The title of Figure 5 is incorrect. Since image 5 has a, b and c sub images they must be listed - what they represent. „Figure 5. Image options for the detected defect.“??
In the sentence: "On the Figure 5 the defect zone on a real structure is presented." should be written ...Figure 5c.....!
The conclusion is clear, but too general. In the conclusion, the results of the tests that were conducted and presented in the paper are missing. What was done, how was it done and what were the results (specifically). And what are the possible further works in that area.
References are not uniformly written.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Comment: Denoting the measurement of the value of the electric field and the modulus of elasticity with the letter E in the same text is neither correct nor permissible.
Answer: The designation of the signal level of the incident EMW from the output of the measuring antenna without a radome is changed to P0, the designation of the signal level at a given point is Pij (where i,j are the serial number of the geometric point along the vertical and horizontal, respectively).
Comment: The title of Figure 5 is incorrect. Since image 5 has a, b and c sub images they must be listed - what they represent. „Figure 5. Image options for the detected defect.“??
Answer: Figure 6 (a is the numerical display of the measured values of the loss at control points; b is the digital image obtained by color processing of the measurement results, c is the defective area on a real structure).
Comment: In the sentence: "On the Figure 5 the defect zone on a real structure is presented." should be written ...Figure 5c.....!
Answer: In the Figure 6.c there is the defective area on a real structure, displayed in the accepted notation of the array in longitudinal and transverse sections on a real structure
Comment: The conclusion is clear, but too general. In the conclusion, the results of the tests that were conducted and presented in the paper are missing. What was done, how was it done and what were the results (specifically). And what are the possible further works in that area.
Answer: Editing is made in the text of the article.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper proposes a method for evaluating the performance of honeycom fairing.
Some typos are detected in the text:
Line 26: The verb is missing in the sentence; probably “fairings are structures with”
Line 83: The verb is missing in the sentence, probably “are carried out”
Line 109: A word is missing probably “operating wavelength of the AD”
Line 119: A word is missing probably “of the cellular structure”
The method is well described and the statistical approach is performed but there is a lack of data in the experiment and hence the conclusions are not supported by the experimental results. For example:
What is the size, thickness and dielectric properties of the three measured structures?
What are the expected results? Do they agree with the measurements? How do you validate your results?
What are the dimensions of the measurement system? What are the characteristics of the "grid of points"? What type of instruments did you use for measurement? What is the minimum size of the detectable flaw?
For your experiment, what are the values of Lv? How many samples did you test? Are the values repeatable? How are these values affected by the electrical properties of the sandwich?
Finally, in terms of the novelty and the state of art of the proposal, the references are mainly published before 2010 and the results are not compared to other method.
In my opinion, all of the previous questions should be carefully addressed before considering the publication of the proposal. The paper should be rejected and, only if the previous issues are fixed, the resubmission may be considered.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comment: Line 26: The verb is missing in the sentence; probably “fairings are structures with”.
Answer: The sentence is corrected.
Comment: Line 83: The verb is missing in the sentence, probably “are carried out”.
Answer: The sentence is corrected.
Comment: Line 109: A word is missing probably “operating wavelength of the AD”
Answer: The sentence is corrected.
Comment: Line 119: A word is missing probably “of the cellular structure”
Answer: The sentence is corrected.
Comment: The method is well described and the statistical approach is performed but there is a lack of data in the experiment and hence the conclusions are not supported by the experimental results
Answer: Editing is made in the text of the article (Figure 6).
Comment: What is the size, thickness and dielectric properties of the three measured structures?
Answer: The dimensions of the controlled area of the sample are 850x400mm, the dot grid spacing is 50mm. Sample thickness is 45mm. The sample is an element of the radio-transparent fairing wall. The skins are made of fiberglass impregnated with epoxy resin, the inner layer is foam.
Comment: What are the expected results? Do they agree with the measurements? How do you validate your results?
Answer: Editing is made in the text of the article.
Comment: What are the dimensions of the measurement system? What are the characteristics of the "grid of points"? What type of instruments did you use for measurement? What is the minimum size of the detectable flaw?
Answer: Editing is made in the text of the article. In addition, Figure 2.
Comment: For your experiment, what are the values of Lv? How many samples did you test? Are the values repeatable? How are these values affected by the electrical properties of the sandwich?
Answer: Editing is made in the text of the article.
Comment: Finally, in terms of the novelty and the state of art of the proposal, the references are mainly published before 2010 and the results are not compared to other method.
Answer: Editing is made in the text of the article. The additional sources are added.
Reviewer 3 Report
1- The introduction is too short, should be extended (even if some additional literature is given in the article when discussing the methodology)
2- The authors should avoid mentioning tools such as Solidworks, Matlab etc.. This is superfluous.
3- Some of the mathematical method should be explained better. Rather than simply referring to equations mentioned somewhere elese, more information should be given to understand the mathematics.
4- How do we know that the results are correct? There is no mention of the geometry and there is no experimental data. This could answer the question, what is the accuracy of this method?
5- Why is this method especially important for fairings?
Many of the data shown are not authentic in the sense that they do not add anything more to the article. (Fig 1,2 3 and 4) and should be deleted.
In this shape this work could only be a conference paper or a technical report.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Comment: The introduction is too short, should be extended (even if some additional literature is given in the article when discussing the methodology).
Answer: Editing is made in the text of the article.
Comment: The authors should avoid mentioning tools such as Solidworks, Matlab etc.. This is superfluous.
Answer: Editing is made in the text of the article.
Comment: Some of the mathematical method should be explained better. Rather than simply referring to equations mentioned somewhere else, more information should be given to understand the mathematics.
Answer: The expediency of applying the Fisher test and the T-test for two measurement samples, based on the normal distribution of experimental data, is presented. The presence of defective zones introduces significant adjustments in the estimation of dispersion dispersions and the average value of the EMW loss, which is clearly assessed by these criteria.
Comment: How do we know that the results are correct? There is no mention of the geometry and there is no experimental data. This could answer the question, what is the accuracy of this method?
Answer: Editing is made in the text of the article.
Comment: Why is this method especially important for fairings?
Answer: This method is especially important for fairings, since it allows not only to detect defective zones, but also to evaluate radio transparency, which is their most important property.
Comment: Many of the data shown are not authentic in the sense that they do not add anything more to the article. (Fig 1,2 3 and 4) and should be deleted.
Answer: The data presented in the Fig. 1.3-5 help to understand the issues of the article, since they contain information about the internal structure of the fairing wall, about the processes inside it (stress state) and help to understand the processes associated with the possible formation of defects affecting the strength of the final product.
Reviewer 4 Report
The topic of the paper is related to the latest trends and requirements of the technologies. However, there are some major issues in the paper that need to be rectified before the manuscript is considered for the publication. Summary of those is given as follows;
Keywords should be in alphabetical order.
Captions of the figures should be more elaborative.
Appendix in needed for all abbreviations.
Kindly correct how to write MATLAB
All the basic EMW equations are presented but no explanation about the proposed design method.
It is expected to give proper explanation and detail of the references, simply writing in the following way is not accepted.
The papers [12-14] show the main dependencies for evaluating
In the papers [15-17] there are elements of analytical strength
Result section is very weak, more discussion of results are needed.
The paper lacks from rigorous analysis.
Conclusion should reflect the Abstract of the paper. It should include the major outcomes of the analyses made in the paper, and how this paper is going to provide a good platform for the upcoming strategies in the field.
Kindly check all the figures and tables are properly cited in the paper or not. Citation of the figures and tables should be either on the same page or just previous or on next page.
Author Response
Reviewer 4
Comment: Captions of the figures should be more elaborative.
Answer: Captions have been corrected in accordance with the comments.
Comment: Appendix in needed for all abbreviations.
Answer: Editing was carried out with the presence of a decoding of all abbreviations.
Comment: All the basic EMW equations are presented but no explanation about the proposed design method. It is expected to give proper explanation and detail of the references, simply writing in the following way is not accepted.
Answer: A more detailed description of the flaw detection method is given. The workplace is described, and a diagram is shown (Figure 2).
Comment: Result section is very weak, more discussion of results are needed.
Answer: The section of research results was added.
Comment: Conclusion should reflect the Abstract of the paper. It should include the major outcomes of the analyses made in the paper, and how this paper is going to provide a good platform for the upcoming strategies in the field.
Answer: Editing was made in the text of the article.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks to the authors for taking into consideration my previous suggestions. the paper has been improved according to them. Some further comments arise after reading the revised version.
Line 37, “fairings” is repeated
Line 96, considered instead of considering
Line 118, should be figure 3.
Line 187-188, relative density definition is previously stated in 185-186.
Line 195, what is the difference between filler and filler material?
Line 208 “there are” should be removed.
Lines 252 and 258, n1 and n2 are defined in two different ways. Please check.
Figures 9 and 10. The values of the limits do not correspond i.e. 3, 5, 6, and 7 vs 1, 2, 4, and 8. Are they related? In addition, figure 12 mentions Lv1 to Lv5.
Line 433, “detect” instead of “detection of” in concordance with previous sentences.
My concerns are mainly about the values of Lv. I realize that figures 8 and 11 show that there is an optimal threshold, depending on the frequency, to avoid false or undesirable detections. When you change the values of Lv (figure 10), their positions in the previous figure are missed. So, it is impossible to know where (in the graph) you are performing the test. The resonance peaks shown in figure 10 need further discussion.
I suggest merging results and discussion chapters or clearly distinguishing them. In fact, the discussion is made in chapter 3 and chapter 4 is anecdotic.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comment: Line 37, “fairings” is repeated.
Answer: The sentence is corrected.
Comment: Line 96, considered instead of considering
Answer: The sentence is corrected.
Comment: Line 118, should be figure 3.
Answer: The sentence is corrected.
Comment: Line 187-188, relative density definition is previously stated in 185-186.
Answer: The sentence is corrected.
Comment: Line 195, what is the difference between filler and filler material?
Answer: As it is shown in the work [15] there is a difference between the modulus of elasticity of the material and the modulus of elasticity of the filler . Such a difference is characterized by the technological processes of manufacturing a three-layer structure, the influence of the gluing process, the thickness of the filling layer, etc.
Comment: Line 208 “there are” should be removed.
Answer: Line 208 “there are” is removed.
Comment: Lines 252 and 258, n1 and n2 are defined in two different ways. Please check.
Answer: The sentences are corrected.
Comment: Figures 9 and 10. The values of the limits do not correspond i.e. 3, 5, 6, and 7 vs 1, 2, 4, and 8. Are they related? In addition, figure 12 mentions Lv1 to Lv5.
Answer: The number of limits, their value and the step between them is selected separately in each case, their values are not universal. Figure 9 shows the characteristic points of the curve and the corresponding Lv values at a selected one frequency of the electromagnetic wave and shows how the number of detected defects will change from the selected Lv. This should show the need for an optimal choice of the value of this coefficient. Figure 10 shows the number of displayed defects versus frequency for different Lv, other limits are chosen so as not to mislead the reader. This should show the need for the optimal choice of the EMW frequency value at which the study is carried out. Lv values in Figures 9 and 10 should not be correlated.
Comment: Line 433, “detect” instead of “detection of” in concordance with previous sentences.
Answer: The sentence is corrected.
Comment: My concerns are mainly about the values of Lv. I realize that figures 8 and 11 show that there is an optimal threshold, depending on the frequency, to avoid false or undesirable detections. When you change the values of Lv (figure 10), their positions in the previous figure are missed. So, it is impossible to know where (in the graph) you are performing the test. The resonance peaks shown in figure 10 need further discussion.
Answer: The number of limits, their value and the step between them is selected separately in each case, their values are not universal. Figure 9 shows the characteristic points of the curve and the corresponding Lv values at a selected one frequency of the electromagnetic wave and shows how the number of detected defects will change from the selected Lv value. This should show the need for an optimal choice of the value of this coefficient. Figure 10 shows the number of displayed defects versus frequency for different Lv, other limits are chosen so as not to mislead the reader. This should show the need for the optimal choice of EMW frequency value at which the study is carried out. Lv values in Figures 9 and 10 should not be correlated. If the operating frequency range of the fairing EMW corresponds to resonant peaks, they should be given special attention.
Comment: I suggest merging results and discussion chapters or clearly distinguishing them. In fact, the discussion is made in chapter 3 and chapter 4 is anecdotic.
Answer: Results and discussion chapters have been merged.
Reviewer 3 Report
The only thing missing for this paper - that is simply analytical, thus an application of a mathematical model - is a test case. Without it it is hard to make a point for publishing. The author should retrieve some experimental data or conduct a very basic experiment themselves. The data shown in Fig. 6 appears made by the authors as an example (The data from Figure 6b is different from Figure 6a.). How can we know if this technique is useful if we don't show an application of this technique? Something like: detected location of defects vs actual measured location. Can the authors do this?
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Comment: The only thing missing for this paper - that is simply analytical, thus an application of a mathematical model - is a test case. Without it it is hard to make a point for publishing. The author should retrieve some experimental data or conduct a very basic experiment themselves. The data shown in Fig. 6 appears made by the authors as an example (The data from Figure 6b is different from Figure 6a.). How can we know if this technique is useful if we don't show an application of this technique? Something like: detected location of defects vs actual measured location. Can the authors do this?
Answer: Figures 6b and 6a are identical in terms of the detected defect. Figure 6a shows the values of the losses in for each of the cells. Figure 6b shows a digital color display of the results obtained. Figure 6c shows a real sample of the design, the tests of which were carried out. A grid of control points is drawn on the specified sample. Since it is not technically possible to control points located on the edges of the sample, the part under study is located with some indents from the edges of the sample. The worst loss values are found in cells 3-5 and 3-6. (Appropriate clarifications have been added to the text of the article).
Reviewer 4 Report
*. Keywords should be in alphabetical order.
*. Appendix in needed for all abbreviations at the end of the paper
*. It is expected to give proper explanation and detail of the references, simply writing in the following way is not accepted. Ex; literature [4-17].
Author Response
Reviewer 4
Comment: Keywords should be in alphabetical order.
Answer: Keywords are corrected.
Comment: Appendix in needed for all abbreviations at the end of the paper
Answer: Appendix has been added.
Comment: It is expected to give proper explanation and detail of the references, simply writing in the following way is not accepted. Ex; literature [4-17].
Answer: References have been revised.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Please
Reviewer 4 Report
Suggestions have been incorporated and article can be accepted for publication.
