Analysis of Tire Acoustic Cavity Resonance Energy Transmission Characteristics in Wheels Based on Power Flow Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present work concerning the tire acoustic cavity resonance, contributing to a better understanding of the energy dissipation for these cases. Is an interesting work and contribution to this research.

The work is written in a way chosen by the authors and can be read and understood. However, in my opinion, the choice of the writing alignment of the work could be improved. The main ideas of the research, such as the methodology considered, results and discussion can become better. A description line based on a simple introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion can improve the paper exposure. The reading suggests an excess of figures presented in the work, some of which can be combined if the alignment of the writing is adjusted.

Authors write in the abstract: “This work can provide a reference to reduce the propagation of TACR energy into the cabin from the angle of wheel design.” It must be taken into account that the wheel design is more than the number of spokes and this should be mentioned in the study.

Concerning the work, an important aspect to take into account is that the limitations of the study should be described in more detail. Questions as the connection geometry from the spoke to the rim are not important? Does the methodology used have no limitations? The number of spokes considered in the study, …. etc

Finite Element Method

The authors use the finite element method in several parts of the work. The only reference for the FEM is written in lines 76-77, concerning the modal characteristics of tire-cavity coupling FEM. There is a lack of explanation concerning the Finite Element Models used and applied in all the studies. What type of software has been used? What type of elements have been considered. How were the models developed (option for restraints, …..). The convergence of the mesh have been performed?

Concerning the finite element analysis, the discussion of the results obtained should be also done in a better way. As an example, figure 12 show the von Mises stress distribution of the 14-inch and 15-inch wheel, but nothing is refereed concerning the type of stress considered, neither the maximum values. It’s not possible to see what was described as “ …. high-stress values near the spokes and bolt holes ….”

As figure 12, in figures 15 and 20 the reference of the type of stress and its discussion should be done.

Concerning the images of figures 12 and 15, as other images (ex: figure 16) with representations from the results of FEM, the choice for visualization with a superimposed mesh is not adequate, reducing the quality of the image and providing a lower understanding and discussion of the results.

Experimental Devices

In section 2.2 authors refers to the Cosine Function Fitting Model and uses experimental and FEM methodology. Table 1 refers to experiment devices, but the description is incomplete. Why the choice for 185/60 R15 88H tire? Should the brand be important? What type of telemetry system has been used?

In the experiment, the authors consider a customized sound pressure sensor. What type? Dimensions? Mass? This explanation is very important. The mass of this sensor interfere or not in the system, changing the results?

Chapter 3 – Wheel Vibration Response Solution

In chapter 3 authors describe results from experimental methodology and one of the finite element models. I don’t understand why a 3.1 point about the Finite Element Model since there is an experimental methodology. And there is any 3.2 point, so, 3.1 is unnecessary.

Concerning the experimental methodology used to obtain the first 3 natural frequencies and modal shapes, a better description of the methodology used should be provided. What type of impact hammer, accelerometer, and acquisition system has been used? Figure 9 shows the wheel modal experiment test with the considered wheel simple supported in the borders. The support conditions to obtain the natural frequencies are very important. Why the choice for these conditions? What are the limitations? Why not consider some type of support with line fishing?

As explained in the last section, any considerations about the finite element model to obtain the numerical results have been written.

Discussion

In lines 371 – 374 authors refer that “ … the power flow increases as the number of the spokes.” But figure 24 shows that, from 5 to 6 spokes and from 7 to 8 spokes, the input power flow decreases.

The discussion and conclusions of the work have a limited description and should be more complete, even in a line of future works. for example, the work developed can be very interesting in the context of topological optimization, which may involve an approach based on metaheuristic techniques, given the type of problem under analysis.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Peer Review Report

Ms. Ref. No.: applsci-1188136

Title: Influence of wheel design on transmission characteristics of vibration energy arising from tire acoustic cavity resonance

 

Authors: Wei Zhao, Yuting Liu, Xiandong Liu, Yingchun Shan, Xiaojun Hu

The subject presented in the manuscript is very interesting. However, the manuscript needs to be improved in my opinion. I recommend the paper for minor revision. The subject of the article is within scope of the journal. I believe that the authors will find below some suggestions, which will help them to improve their manuscript:

 

Major comments:

• Please use punctuation in Equations of the manuscript.
• The authors should rewrite the paper with the names of the sections required by the journal.
• Please refer to equations after these equations, not before.
• Please use space between numbers and units.
• Did the authors use any commercial software to perform numerical simulations or write any own program? What about the number of elements used in simulations?

Minor comments:

• Do not introduce and use abbreviations in the Abstract of the paper, simply whole names.

 

Conclusion:

The subject of the paper and the manuscript are very interesting. I recommend the manuscript for minor revision.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx