Structural Optimization Study on a Three-Degree-of-Freedom Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Transducer
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. “[26] used a decoupled equivalent circuit to simulate the piezoelectric disc under radial vibration mode to obtain three types of losses: mechanical, dielectric, and coupling.” This sentence seems to be an incomplete sentence. Please check the sentence carefully.
2. The thickness of Z-PZT is obviously different from that of X-PZT and Y-PZT in Figure 1(a), which is not explained in the paper. Also this is different from the results shown in Figure 1(d) and Figure 1(e).
3. The meaning of arrow pointing in Figure 1(e) is unclear, please explain in detail.
4. “In this paper, the influence of the transducer’s high-speed rotation state and the contact between the tool and the workpiece on the transducer’s performance is not considered.” Why? Please give specific reasons.
5. “In addition, considering the geometric structure limitations of 3-DOF transducer in milling and drilling, and a comprehensive review of the literature, The approximate geometric dimensions of a 3-DOF transducer can be obtained as shown in Table 1.” Please describe “a comprehensive review of the literature” in detail.
6. “By establishing a consistent finite element model of the transducer as presented in reference [1] and fitting the mechanical loss parameters, different finite element models with mechanical loss parameters were created for various geometric structures to obtain a dataset of performance parameters.” Please describe the finite element models in reference [1] in detail.
Comments on the Quality of English Language1. The English writing should be further polished, there are some confusing sentences.
2. There are spelling mistakes, formula mistakes and unnecessary expressions in the text. Please check the full text carefully.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this manuscript, the authors propose a geometric structure optimization method for a 3DOF transducer. I have the following comments for the authors to improve their manuscript:
1. What's the uniqueness of the proposed method? The authors suggest to clarifying it in the introduction section.
2. The authors suggest to comparing the proposed methods in the manuscript with the existing methods.
3. Some minor problems can be found in the manuscript. The authors suggest to carefully proofreading the manuscript. For example, on page 2, "3-DOF sandwich piezoelectric ultrasonic transducer is shown in Figure 8(a)."
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis work is devoted to the structural optimization method based on convolutional neural network (CNN) and non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm. This method establishes a transducer lumped model to obtain the electromechanical coupling coefficients (X-ke and Z-ke) and thermal power (X-P) indicators evaluating the bending and longitudinal vibration performance of the transducer. By creating a finite element model of the transducer with mechanical losses, a dataset of different transducer performance parameters, including the tail mass, piezoelectric stack, and dimensions of the horn, is obtained. Training a CNN model with this dataset yields objective functions for the relationship between different transducer geometric structures and performance parameters. This is a very current topic, so this work is of some interest to researchers. However, this work contains some inaccuracies and need some revision.
1) The first link to the figure is numbered 8a, not 1. The reason for this numbering is unclear.
2) It is not clear how formula (13) was obtained. It is necessary to either explain or provide a link to the work in which this formula was obtained.
3) Lines 174-176 “where, δ represents the phase delay between the electrical displacement under constant stress and the applied electric field and represents the phase lag between the strain under a constant electric field and the applied stress”. This explanation is not entirely correct.
4) Eq. (17) written incorrect, because this equation consists numerical term? For example, cosh(0/0.8)=1 et al
5) The second column in the table. 1 requires clarification, for example, length (L1 or L2, etc.), diameter (D1, D2, etc.)
6) The third column in the table.2 could look best, if it will be written in matrix form
7) the 4-th term in the column 1 table 2 is incorrect ”T
8) It is very inconvenient to read the graphs in which the frequency is present 104 Hz, and not to kHz (Fig. 3 and also Fig/9-13)
9) Tables 5-10 The first term need to clear (L1, …D1, …)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The horizontal coordinate is missing in Figure 5(a). Please check it carefully.
Comments on the Quality of English Language1. The English writing should be further polished. There are still some confusing sentences.
2. There are still some spelling mistakes. Please check it carefully.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
