Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please check the attachment, thanks!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study used a modified Archard wear model to investigate the wear patterns of different tooth surfaces in a complex tenon connection structure. Some comments are listed as follows:

 

1.     The flowchart in Fig. 1 is not clear. Some parameters are not introduced in the manuscript such as KMESH, time to change the finite element mesh. What is DeltaN<N?

2.     Some many reference errors: Error! Reference source not found.

3.     Why use 20 µm to simulate the fretting motion of disk? More importantly, how to determine the positions of RP1 and RP2? Their positions will have significant effects on the fretting wear.

4.     The load of aerodynamic load on the blade shown in Fig. 21 is too simple. A pressure distribution is more reasonable.

5.     The effect of fretting wear on the contact behavior between the disk and blade is not studied. Please refer to some references such as International Journal of Fatigue 2021;142:105928.

6.     The wear coefficient is not provided.

7.     No validation of the numerical approach

Author Response

Please check the attachment, thanks!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors presented a numerical study using Finite element method and predicted the fretting wear of a tenon connection structure. The paper is generally well prepared, has good scientific soundness and can be accepted for publication after addressing the following points:

The main quantitative results are to be mentioned in the abstract.

The novelty of the paper is to be clearly stated.

The solved governing equations are to be presented.

The boundary conditions are to be expressed mathematically, in the main text.

Practically, how is the aerodynamic load applied?

What is the convergence criterion?

there is a referencing problem, see lines 169, 190 and 199 as examples

Information about the characteristics of the used computer and computational time are to be provided.

The paper is to be checked for misprints and grammatical mistakes.

The paper is to be checked for misprints and grammatical mistakes.

Author Response

Please check the attachment, thanks!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All the questions are answered well, it can be published.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript can be accepted as current form.