Dynamic Simulation of a 5 Degrees of Freedom Rotor Dropping on a Protective Bearing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors I have a lot of experience with various equipment - but only once I used equipment with magnetic bearings.And it has a safety ring for emergency shutdown - I mean this topic is very narrow and rare for research. This is the "pros" of this article. The "cons" are: 1. Authors use software simulation only - all results obtained by software (Fig. 3-13) (but I widely use ANSYS and COMSOL in my own research too - that's not a problem) 2. theoretical part (page 3) have no influence on the results I mean - this is the software model, that's all. This article - brief and concise.
To improve this paper:
1. please check and add the "[" brackets for reference in line 81, 105
2. please add reference in line 126 - right now there is "Error! Reference source not found"
3. the typo in line 198 - "cent" heeds -er to be "center"
4. please fix topic of Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 - right now they are same.
Some additional comments
1. it would be better to describe the figures captions such a "part_61.CM_Angular" etc.
- for best understanding for readers.
2. 6000 rpm is the lowest speed there electromagnetic suspension bearings used in practice.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Some typo. Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. |
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. I have revised and supplemented the introduction. |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. I have cited the suggested references. |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. I have revised my conclusions. |
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: please check and add the "[" brackets for reference in line 81, 105
|
||
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have corrected and commented the problem.
|
||
|
Comments 2: please add reference in line 126 - right now there is "Error! Reference source not found" |
||
|
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have corrected and commented the problem.
|
||
|
Comments 3: please add reference in line 126 - right now there is "Error! Reference source not found" |
||
|
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have corrected and commented the problem.
|
||
|
Comments 4: please add reference in line 126 - right now there is "Error! Reference source not found" |
||
|
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have corrected and commented the problem.
|
||
|
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
||
|
Point 1: Some typo. Minor editing of English language required |
||
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have corrected and commented the problem. |
||
|
5. Additional clarifications Thank you for your attention and suggestions to the article. I am making revisions according to the questions you raised. I fully agree with your suggestions and will try my best to revise the article. Please see the attachment. Changes have been marked in comment mode and blue font. |
||
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors propose the use of the multi-body dynamics software to model the five-degree-of-freedom rotor-protective bearing system and simulate the rotor drop process, relying on the advantages of multi-body dynamics software, to establish a more realistic five-degree of-freedom rotor-protective bearing system simulation model, to get more intuitive model and data, and to better summarize the law. In addition, future research trends and directions of rolling bearing slippage are prospective.
The paper is interesting and well-written. However, some major changes are needed in order to improve the contribution:
- The contribution of the article in the introduction is clear. Dedicate a paragraph just for it.
-The last paragraph of the introduction should contain a brief description of the following sections.
- The introduction section is poor. The article shows very commonly used techniques for software to model the five-degree-of-freedom rotor-protective bearing system and simulate the rotor drop process. A more exhaustive study is necessary when comparing it, for example, with modelling and bearing life extension methodologies (1).
-On the other hand, the potentiality contribution of the article could be used in collaborative robotics. I think so. A description demonstrating the potential of the solution may be included, for example in (2):
(1) Castano F., et ál. A Data-Driven Insights on Time-to-Failure of Electromechanical Manufacturing Devices: A Procedure and Case Study (2023) IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 19 (5), pp. 7190 - 7200, DOI: 10.1109/TII.2022.3216629
(2) Mohammed W.M., et ál. Nejman M., Castano F., Martinez Lastra J.L., Strzelczak S., Villalonga A. Training an Under-actuated Gripper for Grasping Shallow Objects Using Reinforcement Learning (2020) Proceedings - 2020 IEEE Conference on Industrial Cyberphysical Systems, ICPS 2020, DOI: 10.1109/ICPS48405.2020.9274727
Author Response
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. |
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. I have revised and supplemented the introduction. |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. I have cited the suggested references. |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: The contribution of the article in the introduction is clear. Dedicate a paragraph just for it.
|
||
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have corrected and commented the problem.
|
||
|
Comments 2: The last paragraph of the introduction should contain a brief description of the following sections. |
||
|
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have corrected and commented the problem. I have revised the introduction.
|
||
|
Comments 3: The introduction section is poor. The article shows very commonly used techniques for software to model the five-degree-of-freedom rotor-protective bearing system and simulate the rotor drop process. A more exhaustive study is necessary when comparing it, for example, with modelling and bearing life extension methodologies (1). |
||
|
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have corrected and commented the problem. I have revised the introduction.
|
||
|
Comments 4: On the other hand, the potentiality contribution of the article could be used in collaborative robotics. I think so. A description demonstrating the potential of the solution may be included, for example in (2). |
||
|
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have corrected and commented the problem.
|
||
|
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
||
|
Point 1: English language fine. No issues detected |
||
|
|
||
|
5. Additional clarifications Thank you for your attention and suggestions to the article. I am making revisions according to the questions you raised. I fully agree with your suggestions and will try my best to revise the article. Please see the attachment. Changes have been marked in comment mode and blue font. |
||
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have modified the document according to the Reviewer's comments. For this, the article have improved in terms of scientific soundness and quality of presentation.
