A Novel Contact Stiffness Model for Grinding Joint Surface Based on the Generalized Ubiquitiformal Sierpinski Carpet Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review report: A Novel Contact Stiffness Model for Grinding Joint surface Based on Generalized 3 Ubiquitiformal Sierpinski Carpet. The detail comments are listed below:  

1. Revise the title of the manuscript. It is confusing. 

2. Abstract section is written well. However, the conclusion of the work at the end of the abstract section and motive and application at start. 

3. Add a separate section for novelty and application of work.

4. Try to make a bridge between current and previous work. Refer to some recently published work. Add a clear research gap in the introduction section.

5. Add a reference for each equation.

6. The boundary condition is not clear. All the work is selected from review. Justify the new contribution.

7. Results are presented well but technical discussion is missing.

8. The Conclusion section is ok. 

9. References are well selected. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for his careful read and thoughtful comments on the previous manuscript. We have carefully taken his comments into consideration in preparing our revision, which has resulted in a paper that is clearer, more compelling, and broader. The following summarizes how we responded to the reviewer comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A Review of “A Novel Contact Stiffness Model for Grinding Joint surface Based on Generalized Ubiquitiformal Sierpinski Carpet” manuscript.

The manuscript attempts to investigate more accurately a theoretical model the normal contact stiffness of the grinding joint surface. The authors present the “more accurate model” and compare it with experiment.

 

While this manuscript should be published as the work is of relative importance to the industry, there are major problems that need to be addressed and the manuscript needs to be revised before publication. The manuscript is scientifically sound and all revisions that authors are advised to do, deal more or less, with a presentation.  

First, the abstract needs to be properly rewritten using the rules of writing abstract!

Next, the manuscript reads like it was written by a Chat GPT that ran out of coffee. In other words, the introduction is confusing and lacks proper motivation. The authors should aske themselves why should someone care about this work – upon answering that question, they should than revise and qualify the introduction more adequately and rewrite the rest of the paper in a way that it flows and that it is accessible to a general scientific audience. For example, in instruction, the authors should try to show the relevance of their work and explain its importance in the context of material science as well as industrial application/significance?

Also, give better explanation for the “ubiquitiform theory” and specifically for the “ubiquitiform term as this is not a common English language term and while used in small technical circles who are familiar with fractals, it is not clear to most of the reading audiences. Define the term Sierpinski Carpet better.

Figure or two in introduction section to introduce the problem better. (i.e. better motivation)

Figure 1 needs a panel “c” with a picture of a real physical surface for a better presentation.

Similarly, Figure 4 needs a supplementary figure illustrating the real physical surface.

Equations need to be verified. I have followed through the derivation and to me the equation 38 may need a correction.

The experiment in the “Experiment” section needs to be better explained. Additional figures/pictures (under magnification of material upon which the experiment was conducted, need to be shown in the manuscript) (e.g. similar to figures in the supplement). It is difficult to follow what was done during the experiment and connect it the model without better evidence/presentation.

What is the role of the symbol beside the number (e.g., 60# ) in the experiment section? This needs to be explained.

The results section is confusing, and it doesn’t sufficiently connect the experiment and model – not really sure based on this whether model makes sense.  The Conclusion section is poorly written, and it needs to be rewritten to better reflect what is done in this manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor edits

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for his careful read and thoughtful comments on the previous manuscript. We have carefully taken his comments into consideration in preparing our revision, which has resulted in a paper that is clearer, more compelling, and broader. The following summarizes how we responded to the reviewer comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx