Elevating Innovation: Unveiling the Twin Traction Method for a 50-Ton Load Capacity Elevator in Building and Construction Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper introduces a twin traction system for elevators, achieving a 50-ton loading capacity and demonstrating the ability to transport up to 300 passengers in a single trip. The subject of the paper is interesting and in line with the aims and scope of the Journal. The paper provides valuable insights. However, it lacks scientific soundness. More detailed comments are provided below.

1.     Shortly explain the remainder of the paper at the end of the introduction section.

2.     The authors should try to provide a better theoretical background for the paper. They should try to expand the literature review and provide insights into the problem they were dealing with from various aspects. They should try to highlight some research gaps.

3.     The authors should provide some discussion of their findings. They should state the limitations, and further discuss theoretical and practical implications of their findings.

4.     The authors should keep in mind that this is a scientific journal and that they should provide some future research directions that would be interesting to most of the Journal's readership.

5.     Some technical issues should be addressed:

a)     Two sections are numbered Section 4. Conclusions should be 5.

b)    Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in the paper (for example “TTE”). Check the rest of the paper.

c)     References in the reference list are not formatted correctly (according to the Instructions for Authors). For example, journal names are not abbreviated.

d)    Some references are not complete. For example, the reference “Zarikas, V.; Papanikolaou, N.; Loupis, M.; Spyropoulos, N. Intelligent decisions modeling for energy saving in lifts: An application for Kleemann hellas elevators. 2013.” is missing the journal name, volume, issue and page numbers (Energy and Power Engineering, 2013, 5, 236-244). Complete all references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article introduces a novel development in elevator technology, specifically a twin traction system that significantly enhances the load-bearing capacity of elevators to 50 tons. While this is a noteworthy achievement, the presentation and analysis of the system could have been more exhaustive.

The twin traction system, which employs two traction machines to operate the elevator, is an intriguing concept. However, the article could have benefited from a more detailed elucidation of the mechanics and engineering principles underlying this system.

The article indicates that the system has improved efficiency and safety protocols in construction work, particularly in situations where cranes are traditionally utilized. However, it lacks a comprehensive comparison between the new system and conventional methods, which would have provided a clearer understanding of the improvements.

The article also discusses the impact on labor conditions, with the system enhancing safety measures and health considerations. While this is crucial, the article could have delved deeper into the specific mechanisms through which these improvements are achieved.

The reduction in wait times and the increase in productivity are highlighted as key outcomes of this new technology. However, the article does not provide sufficient empirical data or real-world examples to substantiate these claims.

In addition to the points mentioned above, it’s worth noting that over 30% of the sources cited in the article are self-citations. While these may be pertinent to the specific topic, such a high proportion of self-citations raises questions about the breadth of the research. It’s generally considered good practice to cite a diverse range of sources to provide a balanced perspective and avoid potential bias. The over-reliance on self-citations detracts from the overall credibility and thoroughness of the research presented.

Another area that requires attention is the readability of the graphics included in the article. Clear and comprehensible visuals are crucial in effectively conveying complex information, especially in technical fields such as this. The graphics in this article could benefit from improvements in their design and presentation to enhance their readability and effectiveness in supporting the text.

In conclusion, while the article introduces a significant advancement in elevator technology, it falls short in providing a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the twin traction system. The lack of depth in the presentation of the system’s mechanics, its comparison with traditional methods, the substantiation of its claimed benefits, and the clarity of its graphics are areas that could have been improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The submitted manuscript does not fully correspond to the scientific research.

1. The manuscript does not present a research plan.

2. The scientific novelty of the research is not fully presented.

3. The data collection and analysis approach used for the study is not presented.

4. It is obvious that this equipment was manufactured in an industrial environment. In this case, the role of the authors in this project is not clearly reflected.

5. The results of the study are not clearly reflected. What did the authors achieve from a scientific point of view?

6. Literary sources are quite old

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Problems associated with increasing the reliability and safety of elevator equipment are a priority in many countries with developing industry and a large number of megacities.  This is due to the fact that solving the problem by increasing the number of floors in construction, including office buildings where large flows of people and heavy loads move, directly affects the sustainability and safety of processes both in the economy and in the everyday life of society. In addition, solving problems of reliability of complex construction projects is associated with improving the quality of life of the population, so the article under review is of scientific and practical interest. The use of an innovative double traction system, which was developed by the authors, is relevant because it helps solve this problem. The title of the article and keywords adequately reflect its content. In the abstract, the authors present the essence of the problem, its relevance and condition, briefly describe the study essence, and present the results.

The introduction is devoted to the rationale for the relevance and analysis of the problem; the authors provide a brief overview of the studies in which this problem was covered, and also provide the advantages of the proposed design. Section 2 describes the patented dual traction drive and cable design, as well as the additional safety features of the elevator system. Section 3 describes the Safety device design and Steel structure design of the Hostway, and then Section 4 describes the actual performance test results. In the “Conclusion” section, the authors provide conclusions from the work and describe possible applications. The article has been prepared in accordance with the instructions for authors and is relevant to the topic it is researching and publishing. In our opinion, the article corresponds to the topic “improving the design of elevator equipment” and corresponds in type to Preliminary research.

Comments:

1. The topic is interesting, a new design is presented, confirmed by a large number of patents, but, in our opinion, the research lacks scientific validity. For example, the authors in the introduction prove the relevance of the research, but the goal of creating an innovative design is not formulated, and the tasks are also not set.

2. The structure of the article does not meet generally accepted standards; therefore, it appears that the authors have focused on providing an overview of their patents, including an example of the tests performed.

3. The authors say that a redundant system has been implemented, however, arguing that such a system will require less frequent maintenance, it is necessary to provide a calculation showing how the authors came to this conclusion.

4. The authors do not indicate who is interested in such research (although they give possible areas of application), that is, what is the demand for such structures, and whether their production will be effective.

5. It would be good if the authors, in conclusion, outlined the restrictions on the construction of this structure.

6. There are design shortcomings: for example, the low quality of some drawings, and the numbering of sections is incorrect (section 4 twice).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have successfully addressed all issues identified in the previous review round, thus significantly improving the quality of their paper. Therefore, I suggest an acceptance of the paper in its present form.

Author Response

We again deeply thank you for your thorough review. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors took into account most of the comments and improved the article. However, I still have doubds about the number of self-citations. In my opinion, their number can be limited, especially in the case of multiple references (for example, sources 13-19).

Author Response

In acknowledgement to the reviewer's suggestion of reducing the number of self citations, we have chosen to delete 18 and 19. The other patents are directly related to the elevator system, so any further omission may result in self plagiarism.  We hope this satisfies the reviewer. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made a number of important additions to the manuscript and it can be published. These changes were my personal contribution to this Twin Traction Elevator innovation. These changes emphasized the novelty and relevance of this study. The results of the study were also more clearly reflected in paragraph 4.3.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their thorough review.