Exploration and Research on Key Technologies for Improving the Response Speed of Servo-Hydraulic Cylinders
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author
I read the manuscript titled Exploration and Research on Key Technologies for Improving the Response Speed of Servo Hydraulic Cylinders. The following comments should be answered by the authors and applied in the manuscript. I think minor revision is needed for the manuscript.
- Several formatting errors were observed throughout the text. The paper should be thoroughly reviewed. It would be necessary to review the English to improve the quality of the text.
2- Improve abstract part. The abstract should contain Objectives, Methods/Analysis, Findings, and Novelty /Improvement.
3- At the end of the introduction, introduce the novelty of your study and mention the organization of your paper.
4- Can the authors provide better quality figure of the streamlines for Figure 8?
5- Please, include the definition of the parameters of Equation 1 in the manuscript.
6- Please, edit lines 163 to 173 in the manuscript.
7- Please, include the definition of the parameters of Equation 2 and 3 in the manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your careful review and constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript entitled “Exploration and Research on Key Technologies for Improving the Response Speed of Servo Hydraulic Cylinders.”(ID: coatings-1633456). These comments were helpful for revising and improving our paper. We studied the comments carefully and tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript, considerably changing the manuscript according to the referee’ s valuable comments. The revised portions have been tracked in the paper and marked with track numbers. We earnestly appreciate the reviewer’ efforts, and we hope that the corrections will be met with approval. Please feel free to contact us with any questions, and we look forward to your further consideration. The main corrections to the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as follows.
Q1: Several formatting errors were observed throughout the text. The paper should be thoroughly reviewed. It would be necessary to review the English to improve the quality of the text.
Responses: I’m so sorry for my poor English. Thank you for your careful reading. The grammar and expression of the article have been checked by MDPI service, but there are many expression and formatting errors. We have been modified and they have been marked as ‘track 1’.
Q2: Improve abstract part. The abstract should contain Objectives, Methods/Analysis, Findings, and Novelty /Improvement.
Responses: Thank you for your suggestions. The abstract has been updated, including Objectives, Methods/Analysis, Findings, and Novelty /Improvement. And it has been marked as ‘track 2’.
Q3: At the end of the introduction, introduce the novelty of your study and mention the organization of your paper.
Responses: Thank you for your comments. The section has been modified and marked as ‘track 3’.
Q4:Can the authors provide better quality figure of the streamlines for Figure 8?
Responses: Thank you for your suggestions. The figure 8 has been updated and marked as ‘track 4’.
Q5:Please, include the definition of the parameters of Equation 1 in the manuscript.
Responses: Thank you for your careful reading. The the parameters of Equation 1 have been defined, marked as ‘track 5’.
Q6:Please, edit lines 163 to 173 in the manuscript.
Responses: Thank you for your careful reading. The text lined 163 to 173 has been edited and marked as ‘track 6’.
Q7:Please, include the definition of the parameters of Equation 2 and 3 in the manuscript.
Responses: Thank you for your careful reading. The the parameters of Equation 2 and 3 have been defined, marked as ‘track 7’.
Thank you for your comments, which have helped us improve the manuscript. We hope the corrections will be met with your approval.
Kind regards,
Authors’ team
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Could you inform what the acronym GMA indicates?
On the other hand, how is it that the readers of your manuscript can have access to the theses indicated in the list of references?
Author Response
Thank you very much for your careful review and constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript entitled “Exploration and Research on Key Technologies for Improving the Response Speed of Servo Hydraulic Cylinders.”(ID: coatings-1633456). These comments were helpful for revising and improving our paper. We studied the comments carefully and tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript, considerably changing the manuscript according to the referee’ s valuable comments. The revised portions have been tracked in the paper and marked with track numbers. We earnestly appreciate the reviewer’ efforts, and we hope that the corrections will be met with approval. Please feel free to contact us with any questions, and we look forward to your further consideration. The main corrections to the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as follows.
Q1: Could you inform what the acronym GMA indicates?
Responses: I’m so sorry for my carelessness and thank you for your careful reading.
The acronym GMA (Giant magnetostrictive actuator) indicates actuators base on the GMM (Giant magnetostrictive material). It has been added the full name and marked as ‘track 8’.
Q2: On the other hand, how is it that the readers of your manuscript can have access to the theses indicated in the list of references?
Responses: Thank you for your questions. I am more than happy to share my experience in finding literature with you.
On one hand, editors of the journal ‘Coatings’ are very responsible for the authenticity of references, they will download and verify all references.
On the other hand, I am also a reader of other articles. I generally do a search in Google Scholar to find references. Then I can download them from the database in my university. I also look for download references on the website "https://www.researchgate.net/". Moreover, for some documents that cannot be downloaded, I will ask the author for the original manuscript.
Thank you for your comments, which have helped us improve the manuscript. We hope the corrections will be met with your approval.
Kind regards,
Authors’ team
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The review is very interesting. In synthesis, it regards the main technological aspects for the hydraulic cylinder from the first to the four-generation.
In order to better understand the development of this topic, in particular for the implementation of innovative materials as a composite material, I suggest these papers:
Solazzi, L., & Buffoli, A. (2021). Fatigue design of hydraulic cylinder made of composite material. Composite Structures, 277 doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114647
Solazzi, L. (2021). Stress variability in multilayer composite hydraulic cylinder. Composite Structures, 259 doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.113249
Gu, F., Gu, Z., Zhu, X., Lu, X., Fang, D., & Li, L. (2021). Design and hydraulic tests of a metal liner composite overwrapped pressure vessels with seamless connection technology. Fuhe Cailiao Xuebao/Acta Materiae Compositae Sinica, 38(1), 198-208. doi:10.13801/j.cnki.fhclxb.20200603.005
Mantovani, S. (2020). Feasibility analysis of a double-acting composite cylinder in high-pressure loading conditions for fluid power applications. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 10(3) doi:10.3390/app10030826
Solazzi, L. (2020). Design and experimental tests on hydraulic actuator made of composite material. Composite Structures, 232 doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111544
Author Response
Thank you very much again for your careful review and constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript entitled “Exploration and Research on Key Technologies for Improving the Response Speed of Servo Hydraulic Cylinders.”(ID: coatings-1633456). These comments were helpful for revising and improving our paper. We studied the comments carefully and tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript, considerably changing the manuscript according to the referee’ s valuable comments. The revised portions have been tracked in the paper and marked with track numbers. We earnestly appreciate the reviewer’ efforts, and we hope that the corrections will be met with approval. Please feel free to contact us with any questions, and we look forward to your further consideration. The main corrections to the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as follows.
Q1: In order to better understand the development of this topic, in particular for the implementation of innovative materials as a composite material, I suggest these papers:
Responses: Thank you for recommending these important articles to us. The lightweight design of the hydraulic cylinder has a positive effect on its drag reduction and acceleration. Thank you for giving us a good research direction. What we have modified is marked as ‘track 9’.
Thank you for your comments, which have helped us improve the manuscript. We hope the corrections will be met with your approval.
Kind regards,
Authors’ team
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The work presented is interesting, but it is not a research paper. It is an informative text on key technologies for improving the response speed of servo hydraulic cylinders. In my opinion, this work should be published in another type of journal. A scientific research journal is not the right place to publish this article.
The paper has 52 references and only one is from “Coatings” journal. In addition, the main author of this paper is Xiaolan Chen. This is a good proof that this is not the right journal to publish this work.
What is the novel contribution of this work? The novelty with respect to other works already published is not clear. The authors should clarify the significant novelty that justifies its publication as a research paper in a prestigious journal.
In section 3, there is a description of some experiments and their conclusions. However, the results that justify these conclusions are missing.
The title of section 4 is “Hydraulic cylinders of different materials”. However, only carbon fiber composite materials are mentioned.
The work is not bad, but I think it is not a suitable paper for a research journal. The paper needs something else to be published in Coatings.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your careful review and constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript entitled “Exploration and Research on Key Technologies for Improving the Response Speed of Servo Hydraulic Cylinders.”(ID: coatings-1633456).
Your suggestions were helpful for revising and improving our paper. We studied the comments carefully and tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript, considerably changing the manuscript according to the referee’ s valuable comments. The revised portions have been tracked in the paper and marked with track numbers. We earnestly appreciate the reviewer’ efforts, and we hope that the corrections will be met with approval. Please feel free to contact us with any questions, and we look forward to your further consideration.
Q1:What is the novel contribution of this work? The novelty with respect to other works already published is not clear. The authors should clarify the significant novelty that justifies its publication as a research paper in a prestigious journal.
Responses: Thank you for your suggestions. This is a review article. It is a summary of hydraulic cylinder drag reduction and acceleration. Most of the reference files in this manuscript are the research and development results of our team. We are also committed to the research of improving the performance of hydraulic cylinders. We have carried out research on piston structure optimization, seal band design, piston material, coating technologies, etc., in order to achieve the purpose of reducing drag and reducing internal leakage. Therefore, we would like to summarize the research results of the scholars on the speed response of the servo hydraulic cylinder, so as to facilitate the rapid understanding of the peer researchers, and provide some reference suggestions for future in-depth research.
In the manuscript, we proposed four new ideas for improving the speed performance of hydraulic cylinders according to the higher requirements for the future cylinders, including new material sealing ring with low friction coefficient or self-lubricating, the internal leakage suppression from the smart material, implementation of servo control techniques and control algorithms and digital hydraulic technology. These ideas are the future direction for study. And we hope that these new viewpoints may provide some methods and references for the improvement of hydraulic cylinder speed.
We are very sorry for our expression. We have modified the abstract contained Objectives, Methods/Analysis, Findings, and Novelty /Improvement, which has been marked as ‘track 2’.
Q2:In section 3, there is a description of some experiments and their conclusions. However, the results that justify these conclusions are missing.
Responses: Thank you for your suggestions. We have added a paragraph to justify these conclusions and it has been marked as ‘track 10’.
Q3:The title of section 4 is “Hydraulic cylinders of different materials”. However, only carbon fiber composite materials are mentioned.
Responses: Thank you for your suggestions. We are very sorry for our expression. It's really too broad to use ‘different materials’. It has been modified as ‘composite materials’ and marked as ‘track 11’.
We know the Coatings journal is a scientific research journal and only a few review or comments articles. We submitted to the special issue ‘10th Anniversary of Coatings: Invited Papers in Tribology Section’, which is about tribology. Therefore we also summarize our research results over the past ten years, and propose four new directions for future research, hoping to provide reference for peers.
Thank you for your comments, which have helped us improve the manuscript. We hope the explanation will be met with your approval.
Kind regards,
Authors’ team
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
After this last review, the authors have made changes and the paper has been improved significantly. However, some minor revisions are necessary.
The manuscript requires careful attention to presentation. The text must be carefully checked in terms of styles and formatting for symbols, equations, figures, tables and references. For example, “servo hydraulic cylinders, , such as” on line 112, etc.
In section 3, there is a description of some experiments and their conclusions. However, the results that justify these conclusions are missing. The authors have added a paragraph on lines 387-390, but I think that is insufficient. The authors should also justify other conclusions in section 3.
Author Response
Thank you very much again for your careful review and constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript.
Your suggestions were helpful for revising and improving our paper. We all accept and have made modifications respectively. We studied the comments carefully and tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript, considerably changing the manuscript according to the referee’ s valuable comments. The revised portions have been tracked in the paper and marked with track numbers. We earnestly appreciate the reviewer’ efforts, and we hope that the corrections will be met with approval. Please feel free to contact us with any questions, and we look forward to your further consideration.
Q1:The manuscript requires careful attention to presentation. The text must be carefully checked in terms of styles and formatting for symbols, equations, figures, tables and references. For example, “servo hydraulic cylinders, , such as” on line 112, etc.
Responses: Thank you for your careful reading. We are very sorry for our expression. We have modified the expression and grammar errors and marked as ‘track 1-18’.
Q2:In section 3, there is a description of some experiments and their conclusions. However, the results that justify these conclusions are missing. The authors have added a paragraph on lines 387-390, but I think that is insufficient. The authors should also justify other conclusions in section 3.
Responses: Thank you for your suggestions. We have added some paragraphs to justify these conclusions and they have been marked as ‘track 19-22’.
Thank you for your comments, which have helped us improve the manuscript. We hope the explanation will be met with your approval.
Kind regards,
Authors’ team
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
