Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The title of the paper contains "gradual thickness" , which doesn't indicate the authors intention of the study. 'Gradual' word may be replaced .

2.On what basis the analytical model is developed? Is it validated? Detailed discussion on this is necessary.

3. The section headings are not apt and can be changed. Example 4.1 Experiment Result Analysis can be modified as Experimental Results Analysis.

4.Have the authors purchased the experimental equipment or they have carried out the experimentation at a hired facility? If so provide the details.

Some words in the title and section headings need to be changed. Overall grammar needs to be addressed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The main goal of this paper is the mechanical simulation of load-deflection of slotted disk spring with linearly gradual thicknesses. The importance of the topic and its various applications are well described. Also, the research is accompanied by a good literature review. The authors have verified the correctness and accuracy of their proposed process experimentally.

This is a well-written, well-organized and well-illustrated paper. However, several problems/questions are found and listed as below.

1-     In Fig. 1, the geometric parameters of non-slotted and slotted parts should be specified.

2-     Adding a cross-sectional view with loads helps to better understand the equilibrium equations.

3-     On page 4, line 131, equation (4) in "combination of equations (2) and (4)" should probably be changed to (5).

4-     Is the condition of the friction coefficients of different contact edges being the same in all conditions acceptable?

5-     Please explain under what conditions it is acceptable to ignore the effect of shear deformation in the approximation of the deflection of the slotted segment.

6-     According to the flexibility of the base of cantilever beam (used to simulate the slotted part) due to the connection to the non-slotted part, explain the boundary conditions chosen to solve equation (22).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Quality of figure 16, figure 18 and figure 19 are not good, please corrected

2. From figure 19, the results of the proposed model are very difference with the experimental why author said that "the proposed model has good agreement with the experimental data of the disk springs with rectangular channels"

3. In section 4.1 and 4.2, authors must compare with other papers to give the errors are acceptable.

4. Section 2 and section 3, please give some remarks to emphasize the new contributions

 

Please check and correct the english for whole paper

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf