A New Top-Mounted Shear-Hinge Structure Based on Modal Theory and Rubber-Pad Damping Theory
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The ultimate load capacity of the existing and new structures of the TMSH is checked by establishing a refined finite element model respectively. Reasonable logic cannot conceal many flaws and doubts. The following clarifications or modifications need to be made before some operations.
1：The finite element model constructed generally requires shear stress (transverse or longitudinal). Is the model in this study required? In addition, it is recommended to list the various parameters and corresponding values required for model construction in a table.
2：Does the construction of the model require finite element software? So please list the specific software names in the article.
3：The specific content of f listed in formula 1 is not reflected in the article. And this flaw is also reflected in other formulas.
4：Lines 45-50, Related description need strong references (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2022.12.160 ②https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-023-10202-7 ③https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26279-9 )as supporting basis.
5：In Figure 11, the reason for the rapid rise of the curve from 2 to 3 requires specific explanations from the author.
Extensive editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presents a study on the design and analysis of a new structure for the top-mounted shear hinge (TMSH) used in steel-spring floating slab tracks (SSFST). The authors aim to address the TMSH disease problem, which can indirectly affect the safety and stability of line operation. The study involves finite element modeling, modal analysis, frequency response function analysis, and indoor hammering tests to evaluate the performance of the existing and new TMSH structures. The findings demonstrate that the new structure effectively reduces the natural frequency of the TMSH, thereby mitigating high-frequency vibration fatigue damage. Overall, the article provides valuable insights into the design and performance of the TMSH in SSFST applications.
I encourage the authors to strengthen the discussion section by highlighting the practical implications and potential applications of the new TMSH structure. Based on the assessment of the article, I recommend its acceptance with minor revisions.
moderate English revision
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
REVIEW
on article
Research on the design of a new top-mounted shear hinge structure based on modal theory and rubber pad damping theory
He En, Yue-Lei He, Hong-Yao Lu, An-Bin Wang
SUMMARY
The article submitted for review is devoted to the dynamic analysis of the strength of the top-mounted shear hinge, which is installed on the Steel-spring floating slab track and serves to improve the stability of the line. In recent years, to increase the speed of rail vehicles (railway trains, subways, etc.), a Steel-spring floating slab track with multi-stage damping has been used. This allows not only to ensure a comfortable ride, but to reduce the dynamic loads on the units.
The authors analyzed the causes of damage to the top-mounted shear hinge parts and clearly showed the places where the destruction occurred. Further, using the FEM method, we simulated the stress-strain state, determined the natural oscillation frequencies of the shear hinge, which made it possible to identify the most loaded zones.
In this sense, the article is of interest and has practical significance.
The references list comprises 33 sources.
However, there are many inaccuracies and ambiguities in the article. Comments are given below.
COMMENTS
1. The Abstract and the whole article are written in poor English. Sometimes it is difficult to understand what the authors want to express.
2. The abstract of the article does not meet the requirements. It is necessary to formulate a scientific problem. At the moment, I see only an engineering task. The results are poorly written. I recommend that the authors revise the abstract and pay more attention to the results in detail and numbers.
3. The research methodology is not clear. The authors write that they compared models, but do not say what research methods they used. This should also be added to the abstract.
4. The introduction is written not bad. But I encourage the authors to highlight the scientific knowledge deficit and gaps in existing research. After that, indicate the main purpose of the article and the scientific novelty.
5. Methodologically, the authors assume that the reader knows everything. But it's not. I had to spend a lot of time researching the Internet, what is a top-mounted shear hinge. I recommend that the authors provide a diagram of the top-mounted shear hinge, what loads it experiences (shown in the diagram) and what boundary conditions the authors consider.
6. Equation (1) is well known; nevertheless, it is necessary to disclose the variables.
7. Is the stiffness parameter k in equations (1), (2) and (4) the same parameter? However, the physical meaning is different.
8. Why do the authors use a rubber pad? There are many material types that are more stable and less prone to aging.
9. Table 1. I recommend that authors show the dimension of constants and variables in parentheses. For example, Young's modulus (Pa).
10. Table 3. Add a space between the number and units. Take the multiplication sign uniformly in the form of x.
11. Figure 7. "...Stress values of the shear rod under metal pad working condition." What conditions? How is the rod fixed? What forces are acting on it and in what direction?
12. The palette in Figure 7 is not readable.
13. Figure 9 and 10. Small print is unreadable.
14. The structure of the article differs from the generally accepted one, that is, 2. Materials and methods, 3. Results, 4. Discussion. This is not a problem, but it makes it difficult to understand what the authors have brought in new.
15. The article is not in the Discussion section. I encourage the authors to include a Discussion section in which they give an in-depth analysis of their results and compare the results obtained by the authors with data from other researchers.
16. In fact, the authors used rubber gaskets and reduced vibration. How will this affect the dynamics of the entire system as a whole? How will this affect the stability of the vehicle at high speeds?
17. The conclusions should be specified in terms of the obtained scientific result, as well as formulate the prospects for the development of the study and the possibility of applying the results in practice.
Extensive editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After the author's modifications, the article can now be accepted and published
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is significantly improved. All my comments were taken into consideration.
Just one correction that can be done in the authors' proofreading stage. Please, move section Discussion from lines 629-642 to the last paragraph of section 5. For example, 5.3. Discussion.
