A Hybrid Finite Element Method–Analytical Model for Classifying the Effects of Cracks on Gear Train Systems Using Artificial Neural Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Scientific report on the manuscript with ID: applsci-1843753

Title (A Hybrid FEM-Analytical Model for Classifying the Effects of Cracks on the Gear Train Systems by using Artificial Neural 3 Networks (ANN))

Submitted to Applied Sciences

 

Although the paper is interesting, the following comments must be taken into consideration.

 

1.    Abbreviations in Title are not suitable.

2.    English language must be checked.

3.    Ref. [9] has been repeated three times. The authors can be collected all information about this Ref. in one paragraph. What is the difference between this work and the work of Ref. [9].

4.      At the end of the equations, we find that the points and commas are missing.

5.    Figures must be drawn in an attractive form.

6.      Authors should clear the novelty’s statement of this manuscript, should also appear briefly in the Abstract and Conclusions sections.

7.    Have the authors employed any assumptions in the simulations of the examined model? Please explain briefly.

8.    The obtained results must be verified with other previous recent works.

9.    I suggest that the authors create a section about “discussion of results”  to discuss their results and to answer about what the graphs indicate?

10.    In my opinion, the conclusion part of this paper should be modified. It is better to add some summaries different from the abstract to reflect the innovation and contribution of the manuscript. The conclusion can also add some follow-up research content to enhance the continuity of the research in this aspect.

11.    No year in Ref.[2].

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper utilizes the data from finite element analysis as input and output for artificial intelligence to obtain the correlation between the signal variations and damages, which is a good idea. Overall, the paper is well written, before acceptance, I suggest following changes. 

1. In the introduction part, I would suggest the authors include a more thorough review, especially some excellent papers in this field should be cited, just take one example, Li, D., Zhang, S., Yang, W., & Zhang, W. (2014). Corrosion monitoring and evaluation of reinforced concrete structures utilizing the ultrasonic guided wave technique. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 10(2), 827130.

2 .A best figure in the paper is that you can let the readers understand your paper by your figures and captions.  I suggest the authors can have a better description of the figures. For example, in Fig.1, you should put some subtitle describing (a) and (b). In Fig. 2, you may need to give more information on the figure, for example, you can specify the B.Cs. In Fig. 19, you should give more information as well. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper can be accepted in the present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all the comments, the paper looks good.