Analysis of Contact Noise Due to Elastic Recovery of Surface Asperities for Spherical Contact
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attachment for comments
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The gap between previous research and the current study is unclear, resulting in a lack of demonstrated novelty for this paper.
2. For Figure 1, what are the input parameters considered? Is it solely surface roughness? Please clarify.
3. On page 3, section 2.2 ("Contact Analysis"), how did the authors derive the equation 𝑃(𝑥,𝑦)=3𝑌? The original equations, underlying theory, and assumptions should be clearly explained
4. Figure 3 is difficult to interpret. Please enhance its clarity to improve readability.
5. There are two sections labeled "2.2." Please correct this inconsistency.
6. Regarding the discussion of Figure 5, why does the contact pressure exhibit linear column geometry? Additionally, why do surfaces with different Ra values show the pressure distributions presented? More detailed explanations with scientific rigor are required
7. For Figure 6, why does the surface with a higher Ra value (e.g., 5 μm) show lower contact deformations? Are Figures 6a and 6b both for Ra=0.01μm? Please clarify.
8. For Figure 7, there are three curves shown, rather than the four curves indicated. Furthermore, what is the standard deviation for the data?
9. In Figure 8, both subfigures (a) and (b) appear to correspond to Ra=0.01μm. Please confirm or correct this.
10. For Figure 9, what is the standard deviation for the results?
11. Almost 65% of references cited in this paper are over 10 years old. Please incorporate more recent literature to support the work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. For Figure 7, there are three curves shown, rather than the four curves indicated. Furthermore, what is the standard deviation for the data?
Ans) The surface with Ra of 0.01 μm is located at the value of 0 on the graph because the plastic strain is 0 under all loading conditions. In this study, for data consistency, the analysis was performed only for each of the four surfaces with different Ra values, so there is no standard deviation.
Only one measurement for one surface would be considered insufficient. The experiment in this case should be improved.
2. For Figure 9, what is the standard deviation for the results?
Ans) As mentioned in the answer to question 8, the analysis was performed on four surfaces with different Ra values, so there is no value for the standard deviation.
Then in this case, the research design is inappropriate.
3. Almost 65% of references cited in this paper are over 10 years old. Please incorporate more recent literature to support the work.
We have added studies related to noise for surface roughness to the references and added the following related content to the introduction.
Over half of the references cited in the manuscript, including the newly added ones, are outdated and may not accurately reflect the current state of research in this field. The prevalence of sources over a decade old raises concerns about the relevance and significance of pursuing this research.
Author Response
The manuscript has been re-revised according to your valuable comments.
- For Figure 7, there are three curves shown, rather than the four curves indicated. Furthermore, what is the standard deviation for the data? Only one measurement for one surface would be considered insufficient. The experiment in this case should be improved.
Ans) Following the reviewer's comments, we recalculated the average and standard deviation of plastic deformation ratio results for five different surfaces with the same roughness parameters. Because the rough surface is generated with a random number, the shape of the surface varies slightly even if it has the same roughness parameter, and the effect of this is calculated as the standard deviation. As you can see from the results, the overall trend appears to be almost similar to the previous graph. Therefore, the graph and caption in Figure 7 were modified and the following explanation was added to the text.
“Each point of curves in this figure is calculated by averaging the results from 5 different surfaces all having the same statistical roughness properties. An error bar representing the surface deviation of the simulation results is shown on the graph.”
- For Figure 9, what is the standard deviation for the results?
Ans) Following the reviewer's comments, we recalculated the average and standard deviation of noise analysis results for five different surfaces with the same roughness parameters. The graph and caption in Figure 9 were modified.
- Over half of the references cited in the manuscript, including the newly added ones, are outdated and may not accurately reflect the current state of research in this field. The prevalence of sources over a decade old raises concerns about the relevance and significance of pursuing this research.
Ans) Following the reviewer's comments, seven recent theoretical and experimental studies on the effects of acoustic emissions and surface roughness were added, and outdated reference was deleted.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsn/a
