Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for inviting me to evaluate the manuscript " Optimization of Swivel Spherical Hinge Structure Design Based on Response Surface Method" manuscript. The highlight of this paper is that based on refined calculation models and finite element analysis, the stress of key components of spherical hinge was studied, and the parameter design was optimized using Response Surface Method (RSM). In summary, this study conducted in-depth exploration on the important components of the spherical hinge structure and proposed effective optimization plans, which have certain theoretical and engineering value. However, the paper still needs minor revisions before acceptance for publication, and my specific suggestions are as follows: 

(1) The introduction should provide a clearer justification for why investigating the key components of the spherical hinge structure is important for bridge quality and safety. 

(2) The methodology section should provide more details on how the refined calculation model of the spherical hinge was established and how finite element analysis was conducted. 

(3) The conclusion should summarize the main findings of the study in a more concise and clear way. Moreover, the authors should explain the practical implications and applications of their findings, such as how the optimized spherical hinge structure can improve bridge construction and safety. 

(4) The authors should carefully proofread the paper for grammar, spelling, and formatting errors to ensure that it meets the high standards of academic writing. 

(5) The introduction repeatedly states that "there is little research in something". Still, the little research is not a reason for the authors to do this research because the little research may also mean that the research is not valuable and necessary. Suggest replacing "the paucity of certain studies" with "the need for such studies". 

(6) In terms of citing references, a large number of references were cited in introducing the application of response surface methodology, while there is a lack of relevant literature to support the derivation of formulas and further discussions. 

The quality of English language is good.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you also for your valuable feedback and suggestions on improving the quality of your manuscript. We have made corresponding modifications to the manuscript. The red section of the following document lists the point by point responses to the reviewer's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

It is a very interesting work on the subject mentioned above. The title of the work clearly describes the main theme. Abstract is adequate. However, the practical applications of the work is not given. A sentence should be added at the end of the abstract text. Introduction is appropriate and the bibliographic review is upto date. A seperate section named Significance of Research should be added illustrating the innovation of the current work. Remaining main body of the text is excellently presented. Figures and sketches are well documented and fixed appropriately. Conclusions and references are suitably summerazied and presented. A minor english language review of tge text is recommended for further improvement of the manuscript.

Minor english review of the work is recommended.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you also for your valuable feedback and suggestions on improving the quality of your manuscript. We have made corresponding modifications to the manuscript. The red section of the following document lists the point by point responses to the reviewer's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors insist that this paper suggests the methodology of making design as effective as possible for swivel spherical hinge structure design entrenched on response surface method (RSM).

 That is, it can be summarized as follows:

-      Utilizing response surface method (RSM) with Box–Behnken design for optimizing the design of the spherical hinge structure parameters such as bearing & curvature radius.

-      The success and need of spherical hinge structure optimization are confirmed by comparison

From the outcome comparison, the maximum contact stress and rotational traction force in the spherical hinge structure after optimization are lessened by 13.86% and 8.42%. They also insisted that RSM is practical. However, this paper does not suggest your own methodology because RSM is typical before other researches were suggested. You also suggest more results and discussions. Current state is not fit for sustainability.

I recommend to resubmit the paper after significantly modifying it. My judgments come from as following:

1)              Research is typical – RSM/FEA - because your methodology does not contain your own method. Introduction need more paragraph and references. That is, as the emphasis of the paper is on this study, more introduction, including the innovation with more references should be added.

2)              What is your distinctive method or algorithm? Though you explain the RSM – 1) Principles and characteristics, 2) Response surface model construction, 3) Test and analysis of response surface model, this is not new methodology.

3)              Results are not much in section 5.

4)              You need to add some discussion for this methodology.

5)              Conclusion also is not concise. It is required to distinctively show your research results (or more).

No comments

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you also for your valuable feedback and suggestions on improving the quality of your manuscript. We have made corresponding modifications to the manuscript. The red section of the following document lists the point by point responses to the reviewer's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

All issues are raised. I recommend to publish it as current form.