Research on Propagation Characteristics of Tire Cavity Resonance Noise in the Automobile Suspension
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this research, the authors have studied the characteristics of propagation in a car suspension system with special geometry and features, which are useful for the development of the automotive industry and increasing the comfort of car passengers.
Please note the following.
1- Please briefly mention the research results in the abstract of the article to make the work more attractive and the article more visible.
2- The authors are encouraged to explicitly state the novelty of their research and the specific contributions that have not been previously published. It is important to clarify the precise advancements or novel insights derived from this study. This clarification will strengthen the significance of the manuscript and give readers a better context to appreciate the research’s value.
3- Do you think the numerical results presented in the small boxes in the figures are legible in the printed version?
4- The introduction is very short. It is strongly recommended that the introduction section be completed with more references such as the following.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101078
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40435-023-01166-w
DOI 10.1088/2631-8695/aced37
The acceptance of the article depends on considering all the mentioned comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt's a good attempt by the authors on noise analysis. However following points need to be addressed in the report:
1. Assumptions of finite element analysis.
2. If the commercial software is used for FEA what is the reason for using it? How can the authors say that the results achieved through this FE software accurate?
3. Any specific reason for choosing the finite element types? What are DOF and behavior of the element type chosen for FEA?
4. Any Convergence criteria defined for the FEA? If so how many iterations are carried out?
5. Any validation of FE results done? Please elaborate the results and validation
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIn sections 3 and 4 too large statements with three to four lines are written as a single sentence. The authors can try to shorten them.
Through out the paper grammar and tenses need to be thoroughly checked.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents an application of the power flow method to study the transmission of the tire cavity resonance noise through a McPherson suspension. The study is purely numerical and based on finite element simulations. The topic is interesting but some points of the paper should be reviewed and/or extended.
I have several concerns about the paper:
1. Regarding the finite element model, several key aspects are missing:
1.1. The type of element used must be indicated as well as the reasons to choose that type of element instead of other.
1.2. The number of elements is another interesting information for the reader that is missing.
1.3. How the simulation of the bushings is performed is confusing. In order to work properly, they must linked to a fixed element (point, surface). How is this defined?
1.4.There are rotations between the knuckle assembly and the hub, and the knuckle assembly and the low arm that are simulated and bonded constraints. Which impact has these assumptions in the results?
2. In addition to the above. It seems that the modal analysis is performed taking into account only the suspension structure and not the wheel rim. However, the subsequent dynamic analyses (which are supposed to be carried out from the output of the modal analysis) take into account the wheel rim. Could the author explain in detail this apparent discrepancy?
3. Which software is used for the simulations? Does it compute the power flow directly?
4. In line 122 the authors state that the first natural frequency of tire cavity resonance noise is 238 Hz. How is this frequency obtained?
5. Figure 8 shows the interesting sound intensity fields obtained from the simulations. However, there is no explanation of how is this field obtained. It would be very useful to the readers if the authors include a short explanation of the process to obtain the vectorial fields from the fem results.
6. The symbols of all equations must be explained.
7. Regarding equation 7, I understand that f stands for frequency. Which frequency is this?
8. The introduction can be improved by adding more references about the application of the vibration power flow method to automobiles. Although the references are not directly related to the TCRN.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English level is appropriate for a scientific publication. Just a review to clarify some wordy sentences could be needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is about the use of the power flow method for propagation characteristics of TCRN in the McPherson suspension system connected with the aluminum alloy wheel. The article is helpful as the author mentions the finite element method so for the future scope of work it is very useful for the research community. However, authors should incorporate following points in this manuscript
1. Introduction should be improved to avoid plagiarism. It is same as the earlier article of authors: (PDF) Research on Propagation Characteristics of Tire Cavity Resonance Noise in the Wheel (researchgate.net).
2. Similarly, section 2 is the same as the article mentioned above. So, it should be rewritten.
3. As the publication is mainly contracted on FEM hence manuscript should have details of the software used for the simulation and the step or algorithm for the simulations.
4. The author mentioned some terminology like steering knuckle, lower swing arm, shock absorber, rim edge, hub, front and rear bushing, for a better understanding of these, mention all the components in figure 2.
5. The author should explain the parameters of Table 2 for a better understanding of the reader like cross-section area, number of points, etc.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The language in the introduction should be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors considered the comments well in the revised version. Accordingly, the acceptance of this manuscript is suggested.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have answered all my previous questions and amended the paper accordingly. However, one of the concerns of the previous review should be clarified.
It isn’t clear the origin of the first natural frequency of tire cavity resonance. Where does that number (238 Hz) come from? Is it the result of other simulations? Have the authors performed some experimental tests to achieve it? Is it published in the scientific literature?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthor incorporates all the comments
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
