Improvement of Contact Force Calculation Model Considering Influence of Yield Strength on Coefficient of Restitution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this submission to Energies, the authors investigate the main coefficient of restitution in various models. The authors utilize the ANSYS/LS-DYNA software for dynamic simulation to understand the influence of different yield strength on the coefficient of restitution. The authors further propose a new coefficient of restitution model that accounts for the yield strength combined with the J-G model, and verifies the effectiveness of the model in the article using experimental results. The paper concludes with perspectives studies on the effect of the coefficient of restitution for dynamic systems.

I find this manuscript to be of interest to materials scientists (particularly those specializing in metal structures) as well as readers of this journal. As such, I am relative supportive of publication with a few minor notes. While the authors use approaches to understand the yield strength of these structures, the authors should also note that there have also been other computational studies on metals that give atomistic details of how the strength of these materials behave:

J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2015, 11, 5426–5435
Phys. Rev. B 2016, 94, 024108

In particular, these prior studies showed that density functional theory calculations can be used to understand atomistic details. I am not asking the authors to carry out DFT calculations, but it should be mentioned that these approaches reveal mechanisms for the yield strength of metals, which should be noted in the next revision. With this revision, I would be willing to re-review this manuscript for possible publication in Energies.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks for your comments. We have made corresponding changes based on your comments, please see the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has serious flaws and total reconstruction. 

No need to give too much basic literature from Newton, Poisson

The introduction must begin with the significance of the study along with summarising the existing state of the art. How yours is unique

The manuscript is more like a technical report without clear insight

what do you mean by patent in section-6

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks for your comments. We have made corresponding changes based on your comments, please see the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript present an Improvement of contact force calculation model considering influence of yield strength on coefficient of restitution. It studies the coefficient of restitution in the calculation process of the contact force of the multibody system of the clearance rotating pair, and a new coefficient of restitution model was set up. The effectiveness of the new model was verified by experimental results. This work has improved the research on the coefficient of restitution and has strong theoretical significance. The presentation and discussion of the results is sound and clear. I have only a few comments about the manuscript which the authors will need to address:

 

Comment 1: Fig.8 shows a photo of the experimental platform. It is better to add another photo of the experimental steel ball.

 

Comment 2: There are four mutation points in Fig.9, and authors explain that “when the collision occurs again at the same position, the residual stress causes the bounce height value to increase”. A repeat experiment should be supplemented with a steel ball occurs at the same position to demonstrate that residual stress causes the increase of bounce height value.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks for your comments. We have made corresponding changes based on your comments, please see the attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript still needs substantial changes to be accepted,

1-the value of the equations and their units can be given

2-comprehensive proof reading is mandate

3-figure can be of  better clarity

4-Avoid giving fundamental definition such as "When it is always in vibration state, it means that the collision process" rather give a cause/effect inference of it

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks for your comment. We have revised our article according your comment. The specific revisions can be found in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx