Numerical Simulation and Experimental Study of Influence Particles on Controlled Vibration Based on Acoustic Black Hole

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Here are comments about your work:

• The acronyms should be removed from the title. The title must be self-contained and understandable without requiring prior familiarity with specific abbreviations.
• In the nomenclature, it is unnecessary to introduce Ps to denote particles. Moreover, in line 62 Ps is used to refer to particle dampers, which creates ambiguity. Overall, the nomenclature appears redundant and obvious for the topic addressed and should be simplified.
• There is inconsistency in the use of acronyms throughout the manuscript. For example, in line 62 the acronym ABH is introduced, while in line 63 the full term is written again. This issue should be carefully checked and corrected across the entire manuscript to ensure consistent terminology.
• Although the introduction cites several studies employing DEM to analyze ABH-related systems, the research gap, motivation, and novelty of the present work are not clearly established. The authors should explicitly state what is new compared to existing literature.
• No clear justification is provided for the choice of a system composed of two ABH plates incorporating particles. The rationale behind this configuration and its relevance compared to simpler or more conventional setups should be explained.
• Units are missing in Figure 2(c). All figures must include clearly labeled axes with appropriate physical units.
• The authors should explain and justify the selected experimental conditions used for the characterization of the ABH systems, including excitation levels and frequency ranges.
• The experimental devices shown in Figures 2(a) and 2(b) should be explicitly identified and described either in the figure captions or in the main text.
• Section 4.1 lacks the constitutive equations governing the mechanical behavior of the system. These equations are essential for understanding the numerical model and should be clearly presented.
• The equations presented between lines 238 and 258 are unnecessarily verbose and could be significantly simplified to improve readability and mathematical clarity.
• It is unclear whether the material properties listed in Table 1 are taken from literature or measured experimentally in this work. The authors must clearly specify the source of these parameters.
• The Results and Discussion section (Section 5) lacks a critical comparison with previous literature. The findings should be discussed in the context of existing experimental and numerical studies to demonstrate their significance and validity.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Numerical Simulation and Experimental study of Influence  Particles (Ps) to controlled vibration based on Acoustic Black  Hole (ABH)” investigates particle-enhanced ABH structures through combined numerical and experimental approaches. The topic is relevant to passive vibration control and addresses an emerging research direction by integrating particle-based damping within ABH configurations.

• The authors should more clearly articulate the novelty of the present work in the context of the extensive existing literature on acoustic black holes and particle damping mechanisms.
• In Table 1, please correct the terminology by replacing “Dansity” with “Density” and “young’s modulus” with “Young’s modulus.”
• The computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation methodology requires further clarification, including details of the modeling assumptions, boundary conditions, and numerical parameters.
• Additional information regarding the experimental setup is necessary to ensure reproducibility, including instrumentation, boundary conditions, and test procedures.
• The authors should clarify how experimental uncertainty was quantified and indicate whether multiple experimental trials were conducted and averaged.
• A discussion on the sensitivity of the results to particle size and particle distribution within the structure is recommended.
• In Figure 10, a noticeable discrepancy is observed between the numerical and experimental loss factor values. The authors should provide an explanation for this difference and discuss the potential sources of error or modeling limitations.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed the comments and improved the manuscript accordingly.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions, which are essential for improving the quality of our manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your response. However, the explanation provided does not adequately address the concern raised in my previous comment (#7). While the authors state that strict quantitative agreement between the numerical and experimental loss factors is not the objective, the purpose and validity of the numerical simulation remain unclear.

If the simulation results do not correlate with the experimental measurements, the authors must justify why the numerical model is included and what meaningful conclusions can be drawn from it. A numerical analysis should provide either predictive capability or at least qualitative consistency with the physical behavior. Otherwise, its relevance to the study is questionable.

I encourage the authors to either:

1. provide a clearer discussion of the sources of discrepancy and the limitations of the model, along with evidence that the simulation still captures the correct physical trends, or

2. reconsider the role of the numerical results in the manuscript if no meaningful comparison can be established.

A more rigorous justification is necessary to support the credibility and contribution of the simulation component.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions, which are essential for improving the quality of our manuscript.

We have carefully revised the original manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions as listed below. In the revised manuscript, the revised contents have been highlighted in yellow and red for removed unnecessary elements.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf