Dynamic Analysis of Bolted Cantilever Beam with Finite Element Method Considering Thread Relation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present an analytical study of the Dynamic of bolted cantilever beam with nonlinearity. The analysis includes the influence of shear deformation on the dynamic response of bolted structures, which is often neglected. I consider the work is sound and would be of interest in the field. However, some issues must be addressed:

 

Minor comments:

• Figures 6-11 have the same caption.

Major Comments

• There is not a conclusion section.
• The authors mention different approaches to model bolted cantilever beams using Euler beam theory in section 1, I Suggest a comparison between the author’s work and Euler beam theory models may increase the significance of the contribution.
• In lines 123-124 the authors mention that the results show the whole bolt cantilever beam presents the characteristics of hardening type, which is supported by figures 6-11. However, there is not a discussion of the physical interpretation of the effect of parameters presented in table 1.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article discusses the dynamic analysis of a cantilever beam with a bolted joint using a new model of the screw connection. All analyses were performed numerically using the finite element method. The subject of the article is very interesting and certainly has a practical application. The paper has been prepared quite carefully, but significant corrections are necessary before its publication. In my opinion, the weakest point of this article is the lack of experimental verification, but I am not sure if the authors will be able to complete it?

Below are some specific comments that may help authors improve the article.

1. The literature review is quite extensive, but there are no reference to publications from the last few years. The latest cited publication is from 2017 and it is the only paper from the last 5 years.
2. There are minor linguistic errors. Eg "in the left" instead of "on the left" at the beginning of the second chapter or 3x108 in table 1.
3. It would be preferable to have all the symbols used in a separate "nomenclature" section. This would facilitate the analysis of the text and the results.
4. The interpretation of the obtained results should be expanded. In the case of figures marked with "b", only one sentence "The situation in Figure …b is similar" is repeated throughout the article.
5. The captions under figures 6-11 are identical. Please extend these descriptions so that the reader knows immediately what is analysed on them.
6. Some sentences are obvious (eg "If the mass is too large, the inertia will increase."). Other descriptions are not entirely clear (eg "Under the action of external force, the original vibration state of bolt connected cantilever beam system is not easy to change, so the amplitude becomes smaller."). Such descriptions should be corrected.
7. The article lacks general conclusions from the analyses performed. There are also no conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I consider all the comments have been addressed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for considering my suggestions. One more note: the form "on the left" is correct (not "in the left").