Analysis of Contact Stress Distribution between Rolling Element and Variable Diameter Raceway of Cageless Bearing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Page 3, line 116. You write about limitations. Could you list them one by one, briefly?
2. Figure 1. Could you, please, identify on the photograph, on the outer ring, where exactly the segment with variable diameter raceway is located? Which fraction of the total outer ring raceway does the variable diameter raceway make up?
3. Page 5, lines 205-211. You explain the meaning or R₁₁ and R₁₂. But there are R_1I and R_1II in the equation (5). Please, explain.
4. In my view, it is worth giving color scale bar on Fig. 5-7. It would be easier to understand the values of dimensionless stress.

5.Page 13, lines 433-434. You mention “slight effect on the stress”. Is it possible to present it quantitatively? For example: “…changing of friction coefficient within the 0.1-0.4 range causes the change of dimensionless stress for not more than ____percent…”

6. It seems like line 472 of page 15 should start with the capital letter.
7. What was the time gap between getting neighbor data on Fig. 13-14? Micro strain is unitless?
8. In my view, accuracy (numerical value) of the designed stress distribution model should be specified in the conclusion.  

Author Response

We have responsed your comments point-by-point. As the response letter contains the formula, we have uploaded the attachment. Please see the attachment.Thank you reviewing our manuscript and offering valuable advice.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

 

I found your article very interesting, but I suggest introducing the following remarks, which have to be added and fulfilled before publishing the paper:

 

1. Regarding the abstract, it should be shortened, and please focus only on the research outcomes. The results are quite promising, so they should be better exposed. The first part of the Abstract should be moved to the Introduction part.
2. Please provide the Figure presenting the cross-section of the raceway, and how the radius of the curvature and diameter are changing.
3. Referring the Section 4, please provide the information, what type of bearing have you used. I’m not sure, what you have applied 0.26 value for Poisson’s ratio for the rolling element.
4. In Figure 3 b,c, the unit descriptions are missing.
5. I don’t understand, why do you study the bearing with the rotational velocity of 30000 and 60000 rpm as the dimensions are corresponding to the bearing of series 6006, which are quite big bearings? Such velocities are mostly applied for bearings applied in electric machines and are quite small. Please explain it.
6. In the article, I didn’t find the information, what radial clearance was in the bearing? It is proved, that it has an impact on the dynamical response and contact stresses in the bearing during its operation. I suggest 3 following papers included in the references:

 

a) Tomović et al. (2020), Load calculation of the most loaded rolling element for a rolling bearing with internal radial clearance, Applied Sciences 10(19), 6934.

b) Ambrożkiewicz et al. (2022), The influence of the radial internal clearance on the dynamic response of self-aligning ball bearings, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 171, 108954.

c) Chudzik et al. (2019), Effect of radial internal clearance on the fatigue life of the radial cylindrical roller bearing, Eksploatacja I Niezawodnosc, 21(2), 211-219.

 

7. In a few places I spotted minor typos and bolds for Figures in the text, sometimes there is a change of font size in the text.

 

After improving above described issues in the paper I’d like to give my positive opinion on signing my review report.

Author Response

We have responsed your comments point-by-point. As the response letter contains the formula, we have uploaded the attachment. Please see the attachment.Thank you reviewing our manuscript and offering valuable advice.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In my view, paper can be recommended for publishing.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

 

it was my great pleasure to review your manuscript, for which I can give a positive recommendation for its publishing in Applied Sciences Journal. You have introduced all necessary remarks, by which I presume its scientific quality has been increased. Please continue what you do, it is great work and I want to wish you all the best in your future research.

 

Best Regards

Reviewer