The Influence of Interface Roughness on the Vibration Reduction Characteristics of an Under-Platform Damper
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This work focuses on the influence of surface roughness on the vibration dynamics of UPD. While the topic is of interest, the contribution of this work is limited. Indeed, many studies have been dedicated to the simulation and analysis of the contact surface for the UPD, including surface roughness. The authors skip the research done over the last 10 years from major European research teams (Imperial College London, Polytechnico di Milano etc). This is obvious when we see that the references are all old (2012 and before). Due to the low scientific contribution of the paper and the absence of a state of the art, I recommend the rejection of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is of practical interest. It is worth to make an effort to have it published.
However: please see the various comments / observations / requests in the attached pdf. They are of variable importance from lack of clarity, improper use of terms, up to objections of principle, the latter needing a thorough reconsideration.
In general:
· The paper has many points where more clarity is required
· Sections on Craig-Bampton and on HBM can be sacrificed, partially or totally, to give more space both to the final discussion of the results (see observations) and to a more reader-supportive introduction of the fractal roughness theory of section 3.3, where the llack of connection between the mathematical approach and the relation between mathematics and measured (and technologically obtainable) roughness is to be lamented.
Objections and questions attached on the original pdf by this reviewer should be answered.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for taking my observations into consideration and for the detailed answer you provided in the separate "author's response" file.
At present I give my consent to the article for publication, because I believe that the fundamental ideas deserve to be made available to the scientific community and to be further elaborated.
However it's not clear to me why it ignores all my warnings about unclear statements. An example is in lines 87-88 where the sentence reads: “Through the 87 establishment of appropriate contact kinematics model to reflect the actual form of inter-88 face movement. ” The meaning is unclear, maybe the sentence makes sense if better connected to the previous one?
Also a new sentence (lines 69-70) "This is because, when the distribution load is large, it will increase the friction of the contact surface to some extent". Is very unclear. Both in syntactic construction and in physical meaning.
My suggestion is that you put an eye on this, without sending it back to me for a further check.
Then there is Point 7: 1 - the figure is blurred, please mark the angle more clearly; 2 - how do you check that with a so shallow vertex angle the damper will not roll and have lift off? 3 - should you cite at least least one reference that considers this problem? To which you answer “Response 7: Thanks for the suggestion. First, we replaced the picture. Then, through the previous reading and reference of UPD related literature, the selection basis of UPD structure angle is provided, and the literature is cited. This model has been used in many studies, so this model is used for related research.”
Thank you for partially accepting the remark, however the most important part of it was, in fact, not accepted. I gave you a warning about the fact that a cottage-roof damper with a so shallow angle incurs problems of liftoff : I understand that it would not be appropriate to ask you to rewrite the paper from the beginning, but I believe that you ought to (at least) show that you are aware of the problem. If you do that, you are free nevertheless to choose that particular damper because is well supported by some literature that you wish to compare with, taking all the consequences. But you should be aware, because some of the liftoff you find is not to be explained by you treatment of roughness, it does simply depend on marginal equilibrium conditions. I mean that your answer “This model has been used in many studies, so this model is used for related research” is acceptable in context, but that you should show awareness of its consequences. By showing awareness you would have made your paper stronger, not weaker.
Again, the decision now is up to you. Regards
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
