Investigation of the Mechanical Properties of Spur Involute Gearing by Infrared Thermography
, Vladimír Dekýš 1, Michal Kaco 1, Miroslav Pástor 2, Alžbeta Sapietová 1 and Barbora Drvárová 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The 3D printing provides a rapid, low-cost fabrication strategy for components with complex geometries. This paper probes general methodology for the setup of 3D printing of gears made of polymeric materials in order to replace parts produced by conventional methods. The distribution of the strain or stress field on the loaded tooth is measured by a non-destructive thermal method, which can be used to evaluate the mechanical properties for the printed gears. The proposed strategy would be interesting for the related field, and could be suggested to be publised in this journal.
Acceptable.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for their supportive comments and the time they spend reviewing our submission. We very much appreciate their efforts to improve the submission.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comment for applsci-2348061 is listed as follows,
(1) In the section 1. Introduction, first paragraph "In current practice…widespread methods." is too short. Also check for the others sections are also too short, please add more sentence into the paragraph, or arrange them into a suitable paragraph.
(2) In eq. (2), please denote parameter "t", e.g. t is time.
(3) In Table 1, please check the unit "MPa" for the "? Thermal diffusivity". Also check the "Wijnen, 2018" and "RIGID.INK 2022" in the right column are not referred in the section References.
Please add more sentence into the paragraph which needed at least 7 sentence in a paragraph.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for their supportive comments and the time they spend reviewing our submission. We very much appreciate their efforts to improve the submission. Next, we explain the changes we made to the manuscript based on the received comments. All the changes in the revised submission are marked with red.
(1) In the section 1. Introduction, first paragraph "In current practice…widespread methods." is too short. Also check for the others sections are also too short, please add more sentence into the paragraph, or arrange them into a suitable paragraph.
It has been added more sentences into the paragraph.
(2) In eq. (2), please denote parameter "t", e.g. t is time.
Yes parameter "t" is time.
(3) In Table 1, please check the unit "MPa" for the "? Thermal diffusivity". Also check the "Wijnen, 2018" and "RIGID.INK 2022" in the right column are not referred in the section References.
The table has been modified. "Wijnen, 2018" and "RIGID.INK 2022" have been added to references.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article deals with testing of printed gears using thermographic methods. The manuscript contains 6 figures and 1 table. Figures and tables aren't properly prepared. Authors cited 25 literature sources. The work requires numerous improvements to be of satisfactory quality.
General remarks
1. The authors must clearly indicate the novelty of the work compared to the current state of the art
2. In the introduction, discuss the state of the art related to thermal testing of wheels
3. In general, improve the discussion of the results obtained
4. The work also requires careful text editing
5. Conclusions in Conclusion give in the form of points
6. Clearly define the purpose of the work, it is not known why the research was carried out.
7. The authors measure the temperature at the interface between the made wheel and the excitation element mounted on the exciter for different materials, but they did not specify the friction value or surface roughness for individual variants. In addition, they did not specify the pitch of the exciter.
8. In Fig. 4, the correct unit (deg?)
9. The work is artificially divided and shortened - why are FEM simulation results not presented in this work only, it should be in the next article?
10. The work also lacks strain gauge measurements at the base in order to verify the results obtained in Fig. 4 and 5
11. In the paper, the authors must provide the geometry of the tested wheels.
12. Figures 5 and 6 illegible.
13. Authors must correct the literature according to the template.
14. The research method is not precisely described.
15. What was the tip and tooth clearance for the tested elements?
After correcting and supplementing, the work must be re-reviewed.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for their supportive comments and the time they spend reviewing our submission. We very much appreciate their efforts to improve the submission. Next, we explain the changes we made to the manuscript based on the received comments. All the changes in the revised submission are marked with red.
- The authors must clearly indicate the novelty of the work compared to the current state of the art.
The novelty of the work is based on the detection of stress, more precisely the first invariant of the stress tensor, using the thermoelasticity method on polymer gears fabricated by 3D printing . This method has been applied in the past in the analysis of metallic samples or machine parts, but we have not encountered any work in which this method has been applied to the measurement of gears, metallic or non-metallic.
2. In the introduction, discuss the state of the art related to thermal testing of wheels
The current state has been completed.
3. In general, improve the discussion of the results obtained
Discussion has been improved.
4. The work also requires careful text editing
The work has been edited.
5. Conclusions in Conclusion give in the form of points
Conclusions have been made in the form of points
6. Clearly define the purpose of the work, it is not known why the research was carried out.
Purpose of the work.
1. To verify and realize thermoelastic measurements on non-metallic gears with PLA and PETG materials. Measurements are currently underway on Onyx and Onyx composite gears, respectively.
2. The above work is related to thermoelastic measurements, fatigue limit determination and nondestructive testig, carried out at the authors' workplace.
3. It is a part of the analysis of mechanical properties of elements produced by 3D printing.
7. The authors measure the temperature at the interface between the made wheel and the excitation element mounted on the exciter for different materials, but they did not specify the friction value or surface roughness for individual variants. In addition, they did not specify the pitch of the exciter.
The roughness value was added, the coefficient of friction in the work was not measured. It is an important parameter that will be addressed in further research.
8. In Fig. 4, the correct unit (deg?)
Yes, it's deg, it was added in the text below the picture.
9. The work is artificially divided and shortened - why are FEM simulation results not presented in this work only, it should be in the next article?
Yes the simulation results will be in the next article.
10. The work also lacks strain gauge measurements at the base in order to verify the results obtained in Fig. 4 and 5
The strain gauge measurements were made because of the control of the applied force, i.e. the control of the load on the gear during the test. A computational model of the FEA is being prepared.
11. In the paper, the authors must provide the geometry of the tested wheels.
The geometric data of the tested wheels have been completed.
12. Figures 5 and 6 illegible.
The pictures have been edited.
13. Authors must correct the literature according to the template.
The literature has been edited.
14. The research method is not precisely described.
The description of the method has been completed.
15. What was the tip and tooth clearance for the tested elements?
It was 2.1 mm (by design).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comment for applsci-2348061-v2 is listed as follows,
(1) In page 2, lines 94-95, please change the "ABS (Arylonitrile butadiene styrene), Nylon 12, PC (Polycarbonate) and PLA (Polylactic acid)" into the "ABS, Nylon 12, PC (Polycarbonate) and PLA".
(2) In eq. (4), please check right side of eq. S(t), e.g. include the parameter "t" after parameter ?lock-in.
None.
Author Response
(1) In page 2, lines 94-95, please change the "ABS (Arylonitrile butadiene styrene), Nylon 12, PC (Polycarbonate) and PLA (Polylactic acid)" into the "ABS, Nylon 12, PC (Polycarbonate) and PLA".
It is corrected now.
(2) In eq. (4), please check right side of eq. S(t), e.g. include the parameter "t" after parameter ?lock-in.
Equation 4 is modified now.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for considering my comments. I will recommend publishing the work.
Author Response
Thank you very much.
