Dynamic-Breakdown of the Ball-Screw Inerter in ISD System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer Comments

In this paper, Inerter is a novel type of mechanical element. As the important composition of vibration 8 control systems, inerters are widely used. Meanwhile, the operation security issue of the inerter is becoming increasingly prominent. Dynamic-breakdown of the inerter (DBoI) means that the in- erter’s two terminals come into contact, which can cause huge impact force and destroy the system. The ball-screw inerter is an essential protype of inerters. However, the followings should be carefully addressed in the revision to be published in Applied Sciences.

1-      The novelty of the work must be clearly addressed and discussed, compare your research with existing research findings and highlight novelty, (compare your work with existing research findings and highlight novelty).

2-      The authors should be followed the instruction of the journal in all parts and sections in this manuscript. Also, similarity index must be reduced to not more than 20% with not more than 3% from a source.

3-      Complete mathematic calculation model with all nomenclature missing

4-      The abstract needs more quantitative results. The abstract section is an important and powerful representation of the research. It is better that the results should be presented with the support of specified data.

5-      The main objective of the work must be written on the more clear and more concise way at the end of introduction section,

6-      Introduction section must be written on more quality way, i.e. more up-to-date references addressed. Research gap should be delivered on more clear way with directed necessity for the conducted research work,

7-      The authors should indicate this technique to enhance system performance. Also, the author should add more references that discuss the effect of using this technique. It is recommended that the authors carry out wide analysis and comparison with the state-of-the-art studies.

8-      Most tables and figures are needed improve the quality of all tables and figures.

9-      Add references for all equations.

10-  I would also expect to validate with two more experimental works available in the literature.

11-  The literature review must be improved. Please highlight in the literature review the differences between previous papers and your paper. Please clearly indicate the knowledge gap and prove that it is a really not analyzed area of the field. Please indicate new approach / new methods in a comparison to the existing investigations (literature review should be extended and add below references). Numerical Investigations of Transient Flow Characteristic in Axial Flow Pump and Pressure Fluctuation Analysis Based on the CFD Technique.

12-  You need to add error analysis of your results and add the error bars in your graphs to indicate your accuracy measurements.

13-  Improve work justification. Also, add more analysis about velocity and pressure contours.

14-  More quantitative conclusions should be presented. Please prepare additional comparisons, some percentage differences. There is a lack of quantitative conclusions which should contain main findings from the paper and highlight the new and high novelty and contribution of your work to the field.

15-  Present the mathematical equation of the boundary conditions and initial condition.

16-  Conclusion section is missing some perspective related to the future research work, quantify main research findings.

17-  The conclusion section on lacks in summative conclusions. The main results, novelty and academic contributions should be emphasized in this section. Moreover, are the results obtained in this paper really applicable in other similar researches?

18-  In the discussion development, it is very important to emphasize points of agreement or disagreement between results in this work and others cited in references part of manuscript.

19-  Authors should discuss limitations of the current study and possible improvements for future directions/research works.

20-  English language should be carefully checked and carefully check paper for language typos.

21-  Any authorship changes will need to have a specific, valid reason for the update that will be evaluated by the Editor according to journal defining authorship guidelines.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript analyzed the dynamic-breakdown problem of the ball-screw inerter in a suspension system. The topic is of interest and relevance and fits this journal. The manuscript is in general well written with clear figures, and it is definitely worth publication. The reviewer suggests a minor revision before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

1. In the introduction, the recent advances in inerter dampers and impulse-induced analysis, especially with consideration of inerter-damper subjected to impulsive force in the possible condition of breakdown, should be added and commented.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2007.11.002

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2022.107472

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106463

2. Despite the necessity of the experimental study of the dynamic breakdown of inerter in ISD, the different conclusions and breakdown-induced impact force should be quantitively compared with the results in [28]. The new finding in ISD should be highlighted in the revised Abstract and Conclusion.

3. The applicability of specific values of et in Table 2 and suggested adjustment ranges should be further explained.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I don't know if I am doing well to write to you honestly as I am very glad that I received this article for review. I very much enjoyed the presentation of the study: an outline and a very concise presentation of the problem studied and a succinct review of the current details in your chosen topic. I liked the way you correlated the theoretical results, the organization of the exposition, and the examples. I have highlighted only a few of the highlights of the article, but it would be fair to give the whole article as an example of the quality of content and elegance of the presentation. I congratulate you on your work and the results of your work.

 

B)-Weak points of the manuscript

 -I have not found any weaknesses in this manuscript. If they exist, I am sure they cannot influence the quality of the article in any way.

 I have read, with great interest, and patiently analysed, I have come to the following conclusions:

 

[1] The article is the result of a great research work.

 

[2] The manuscript is structured in a very original way, more on the basis of the problems studied, and less, as is usual, on the basis of the sections devoted to them. It is an efficient method, admittedly little used, but in the case of this article it proved to be very advantageous.

 

[3] The objective of this research is to confirm whether Dynamic-breakdown of the inerter (DboI) exists in the inerter-spring-damper (ISD) system and to explore the dynamic characteristics of the ball-screw inerter in the ISD system. (DboI means that state of the inerter's in which the two terminals of this mechanical element come into contact, which can cause huge impact force and destroy the system).

 

[4] To achieve this goal, the authors' strategy focuses on the research on the dynamic-breakdown of a ball- screw inerter (DBoBSI) in ISD system. For validation the authors provided a novel experimental system is established and experiments of DBoBSI in ISD system are carried out.

 

[5] The results of the experiments are very elegantly presented in detailed tables and figures by size classes.

 

[6] Given the scientific basis that the authors cite, which is very well established in the field, they carry out a competent analysis, always taking as a reference and starting point the literature. Thus, the first section reviews these bibliographical landmarks, using references published in the last two decades, thus a very current bibliography.

 

[7] As the paper is presented, readers can easily and comprehensively understand what the research objective is, what the experimental part consists of and the results obtained.

 

[8] The authors prove with a minimal and easy to understand, but also easy to implement, mathematical package the theoretical consistency of the study.

 

[9] The mathematical modelling is revealed to the readers in the second section of the article.

 

[10] The explanations that follow the figures are very pertinent and easy to capture in a logical and elegantly presented sequence

 

[11] The authors' conclusions ([1]-DBoI exists in ISD system; [2]- in this research, the ball-screw inerter is connected with a rectangular spring in parallel, and a novel dynamic-breakdown experimental system is established; [3]- On account of the experiments of the DBoBSI in ISD system, the dangerous situation that the inerter causes may be estimated) concerning the study are very well anchored in the significance of the results and succinctly presented in the section dedicated to them.

 

[12] The authors will continue the research work, because they have identified that the research shall focus on the dangerous situation that the inerter causes almost entire impulse. Based on the dangerous situation, dynamic-breakdown issue of the DBoBSI in ISD system is simplified. And the dangerous situation should be mainly concerned and researched. Dynamic-breakdown issues of other kinds of situations and other categories of inerters will be researched in further works

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer Comments

The followings should be carefully addressed in the revision to be published in Applied Sciences.

1-      The novelty of the work must be clearly addressed and discussed, compare your research with existing research findings and highlight novelty, (compare your work with existing research findings and highlight novelty).

2-      The abstract still needs more quantitative results.

3- The research gap should be delivered on more clear way with directed necessity for the conducted research work,

4-      Add references for all equations.

5-      I would also expect to validate with two more experimental works in the literature.

6-      You need to add an error analysis of your results and add the error bars in your graphs to indicate your accurate measurements.

7-      More quantitative conclusions should be presented.

8-      The conclusion section on lacks in summative conclusions.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx