Influence of Smart Spring Support Parameters on Vibration Characteristics of Three Support Shafting

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is a continuation of earlier published work on the same subject, i.e. influence of smart spring support on shaft vibration. In contrast to the first article the authors did not provide experimental verification of results, which is a certain disappointment. Rather surprising is the prediction that the damping at the smart spring support has no influence on system vibration. Especially this fact should be experimentally verified.

The article makes impression that it was completed in a hurry, which is indicated e.g. by title of section 2 and conclusion at the bottom of the page. Some results of the analysis are presented indistinctly. It concerns Figs. 10 to 15, where the influence of system parameters  is not clearly visible.  It is also surprising that the earlier published article is not quoted in references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper investigates the influence of smart spring support parameters on the vibration response of a shaft system. The obtained results stem from simulations. The paper is well written and well organized, and it is suitable for publication in the Journal provided that the Authors carry out some minor reviews to the manuscript as follows:

• Please, clarify the role of the finite element method in the process: it is mentioned in the Abstract, but the manuscript reports theoretical derivations of the equations of motion; if the simulated response has been obtained from a numerical model, this should be described in the revised manuscript, otherwise the reference to the finite element method in the abstract must be removed;
• Please, carefully revise the text to amend typos and misprints: for instance, when references are mentioned in the Introduction as AuthorName et al., the sentence must continue without capital letter; the name of the Authors of Refs. 19 and 20 are incorrectly reported (line 81); sentences should not start with capital letter after semicolons (pag. 3); sentence at lines 168-169 is incomplete (in the direction of…?); there is a repeated sentence in the text (pag. 13, lines 282-284); please, replace FIG. with Fig.;
• The quality of Figures 7 and 15a must be improved;
• The characteristics of sensors and data acquisition system should be reported in Section 2.1.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Correct abstract, introduction. Acceptable literature review.

Chapter 2 also does not raise any objections - a correctly described test stand and tests carried out by the authors of the paper. Reservations at this point can be made about the way the figures are described and presented - it is not uniform and the authors should correct it.

Chapter 3 - presents the "dynamic model of three support shafting". Figure number 7 is recommended to be corrected - something needs to be done with its quality. This chapter shows some ambiguities in the paper related to the symbols and markings provided by the authors. Some quantities are not explained in the text, others are presented in a strange position, as if someone had lifted them up. The method of numbering the formulas also differs. Fragments of the paper where the matrices are found need to be rewritten. It is recommended to reduce the font size so that the patterns and sizes are properly presented. Fonts of various sizes appear in the manuscript - we are talking about patterns and their numbering. It does not look very aesthetic - it needs to be improved.

In Chapter 4, Table 4 requires editorial attention and the adjustment of its form to current standards - different ways of specifying units - this must be standardized.

In many places, there is no space between the text and formulas, figures or tables - this is an editorial note, but it reduces the value of the manuscript.

It is recommended that the authors present the scheme developed in Matlab / Simulink, describe it a bit - it will increase the value of the paper. Figure 10 needs improvement.

In general, the paper is not bad, it shows applied science, but the lack of positive aesthetic impressions lowers its total assessment. I propose that the authors consider introducing nomenclature into the manuscript.

The paper requires improvement - in terms of content and editorial. I suggest major/minor revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx