Study on the Load-Bearing Characteristics Analysis Model of Non-Pneumatic Tire with Composite Spokes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The research of non-pneumatic tire is a hot topic in recent years. In this paper, the load-bearing characteristics of non-pneumatic tires with composite spokes was studied by the combination of FEM and experiments. An analytical model of tire bearing characteristics was established and its accuracy is also verified. This approach is interesting and could provide valuable information for the non-pneumatic tire design, however, this article has some drawbacks that need to be addressed before publication. Some questions and modifications are summarized as follows：
1. Line 95, Page 2. " …following the ASTM D3039 and ASTM D6641 standards…. "—Please explain better or include a reference.
2. Line 146, Page 5. Compared with MR Model and Yeoh model, why choose NH model here?
3. Section 3.2. More details are needed in finite element modeling process.
4. Please explain whether the established LCA model is applicable to the spoke of other structures.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewer,
Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have learned much from your comments, which are fair, encouraging and constructive. After carefully studying the comments, we have made corresponding changes during the past week. Our responses of the comments and the main revisions are listed as follows:
Comments 1. Line 95, Page 2. " …following the ASTM D3039 and ASTM D6641 standards…. "—Please explain better or include a reference.
Reply: Thank you for your comments. We have added explanations for the two standards in this article. (Page 3, Line 98)
Comments 2. Line 146, Page 5. Compared with MR Model and Yeoh model, why choose NH model here?
Reply: Thank you for your advice. We have added the reason why neo-Hookean constitutive model was selected instead of other constitutive models to simulate the mechanical properties of rubber. (Page 6, Line 155)
Comments 3. Section 3.2. More details are needed in finite element modeling process.
Reply: Thank you for your advice. We have added the corresponding content, where the element type, the analysis step setting and load setting in the FE model are described in detail. (Page 8, Line 190, 195 and 216)
Comments 4. Please explain whether the established LCA model is applicable to the spoke of other structures.
Reply: Thank you for your careful work. We have added some contents to illustrate the LCA model can be used for other spoke structures of NPTs. (Page 13, Line 335)
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is an interesting work. However major changes need to be made:
-In the abstract do not use abbreviations
-The authors claim "Few researchers have explored the load-bearing principles and deformation modes of NPTs with composite spoke (NPT-CS) structures.." Provide references for this.
-The last sentence of the Introduction section is very difficult to be understood. The authors should better point out what are the novel contributions of this work in comparison to the existing literature.
-The authors claim that they determined the material parameters, of CFRP, such as modulus, strength, poisson ratio and they present stress-strain curves in their results. However, they don't expain how the strength was measured.
-In line 139 it is mentioned "within the Cartesian coordinate system's 12 planes (x-y plane), 13 planes (x-z plane), and 23 planes (y-z plane)." Are these numbers correct and how they are found?
- In table 4 the authors should include the type of element that is used for each type. Are they hexahedral, tetreahedral for exaple? For the FEM simulation type of analysis is transient or steady state? Is the load value time dependent?
-The LCA model is an analytical 1d model? More details should be given.
-The description of lines 251-254 should be provided after the end of equation 2.
-C0 and C1 are presented twice in Table 6. The results of figures 11 and 12 are not well explained. Also the purpose of these results is not well explained.
-The authors must compare their results with relevant results that exist in the literarure and mention them in the article.
Minor
-correct the word exploded in line 173.
-in line 279 add an s in coefficient.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewer,
Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have learned much from your comments, which are fair, encouraging and constructive. After carefully studying the comments, we have made corresponding changes during the past week. Our responses of the comments and the main revisions are listed as follows:
Comments 1. In the abstract do not use abbreviations
Reply: Thank you for your comments. We have revised all abbreviations in the abstract. (Page 1, Line 8)
Comments 2. The authors claim "Few researchers have explored the load-bearing principles and deformation modes of NPTs with composite spoke (NPT-CS) structures." Provide references for this.
Reply: We are sorry for making you confused. We have revised the description of the research on composite spoke non-pneumatic tires and added the reference. (Page 2, Line 75)
Comments 3. The last sentence of the Introduction section is very difficult to be understood. The authors should better point out what are the novel contributions of this work in comparison to the existing literature.
Reply: Thank you for your comments. We have added the description of the novelty for our research at the end of the Introduction. (Page 2, Line 90)
Comments 4. The authors claim that they determined the material parameters, of CFRP, such as modulus, strength, poisson ratio and they present stress-strain curves in their results. However, they don't explain how the strength was measured.
Reply: Thank you for your careful work. The NPT simulation results showed that the maximum stress of the structure is much smaller than the strength limit of the composite material, so the strength value was not extracted from the stress-strain curve. The “strength” (Page 3, Line 102) has been deleted and the explanation (Page 14, Line 363) has also added.
Comments 5. In line 139 it is mentioned "within the Cartesian coordinate system's 12 planes (x-y plane), 13 planes (x-z plane), and 23 planes (y-z plane)." Are these numbers correct and how they are found?
Reply: Thank you for your comments. We have modified Figure 1 and marked the local Cartesian coordinate system. And the detailed explanation has added in Page 6, Line 141.
Comments 6. In table 4 the authors should include the type of element that is used for each type. Are they hexahedral, tetrahedral for example? For the FEM simulation type of analysis is transient or steady state? Is the load value time dependent?
Reply: Thank you for your advice. We have explained the types of elements in the finite element model and described the analysis steps and load settings. (Page 8, Line 190, 195 and 216)
Comments 7. The LCA model is an analytical 1d model? More details should be given.
Reply: We are sorry for making you confused. The LCA model is a 2D model. We have added a detailed description of the setting of the LCA model. (Page 9, Line 238)
Comments 8. The description of lines 251-254 should be provided after the end of equation 2.
Reply: Thank you for your careful work. We have adjusted the position of the content. (Page 10, Line 264)
Comments 9. C0 and C1 are presented twice in Table 6. The results of figures 11 and 12 are not well explained. Also the purpose of these results is not well explained.
Reply: Thank you for your comments. We have deleted the repeated C0 and C1 in table 6. And the explanations and analysis of the results for figures 11 and 12 have been added. (Page 16, Line 399 and 422)
Comments 10. The authors must compare their results with relevant results that exist in the literarure and mention them in the article.
Reply: Thank you for your careful work. We have added a reference to the comparison results with other studies in this article. (Page 14, Line 360)
Comments 11. correct the word exploded in line 173.
Reply: Thank you for your careful work. We have replaced the word “exploded” as “assembly chart”. (Page 7, Line 185)
Comments 12. in line 279 add an s in coefficient.
Reply: Thank you for your careful work. We have corrected. (Page 12, Line 298)
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have addressed my concerns.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewer,
We are sorry for the inconvenience caused by English language problems. We have finished the minor editing of English language in this manuscript. The detailed revisions have been marked red.
In the process of writing, we hope that the English language expression is more standard and accurate. Before submitting the first manuscript to this journal, we have edited it by Elsevier Language Services. The language editing certificate is also uploaded. Thanks for your comments on our paper.
