Introducing an Open-Source Simulation Model for Track Rollers Considering Friction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Brief summary
The authors are presenting a python based open source code method that can be used to modell loading and friction of track roller. Usability but slight differences to advanced commercial programs are adressed.
Broad comments
The overall paper is well structured and precisely concluded. The presented calculation model enables the predetermination of locating bearing track roller guidance systems with two-point contact. It can be used as a basis for the interpretation of further analyses with commercial software.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your review. Please find attached the answers to your comments.
Kind regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper describes a semi-analytical model for the determination of stresses in monorail systems. This model is compared with an established model and then discussed. The paper is interesting from a contact mechanics point of view. The derivation of the essential equations is good and clearly comprehensible.
My main criticism of the present form, however, is a description of the benefits of the model that is not entirely convincing to me. Is the community of monorail systems very large? Is a tool for estimating stresses really needed? What are the main disadvantages of using CONTACT? Since, as the authors document, the established software is superior to their own model on some issues, the authors should be clearer about the benefits of their model.
I also have some minor points:
- In equations (4) and (5), please replace the small delta with the partial d (as this is no variation calculus but the partial derivation.
- In equation (10), I assume the F_,2 should be F_A2
- I understand that this is a purely numerical study and you compare your results with other numerical models. But can you also provide some information on experimental data from literature? Are experimental results met by these simulations? Corresponding sources could be added to the introduction section.
- As far as I understand, the relative velocities at the contact points are only used to determine the direction of the friction force. I would assume that the friction coefficient should also be somehow dependent on the magnitude of the relative velocity. Again, I understand that this was not the focus of your paper (as you compare your model to another one) but is there any knowledge about this effect? In this context and for the sake of completeness, you should also provide the equations for ?rel,dir,?C and ?rel,dir,yC (as these are not velocities but "only" projected directions).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your review. Please find attached the answers to your comments.
Kind regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper deals with the ¨Introducing an open-source simulation model for track rollers 2 considering friction¨. The manuscript topic is interesting. There are a couple of comments that the authors should revise:
1- The Abstract should rewrite. A brief of the problem, procedure, and results should add to the Abstract section.
2- The introduction needs to be improved. The benefits and drawbacks of this research are not clear. The authors aimed for what they wanted to present, but they did not mention what kind of problem they wanted to solve. More literature needs to add to the introduction section.
3- Please change the title of ¨Materials and Methods¨ to a simulation or modeling topic. Because this part focused on assumptions, governing equations, and modeling procedures.
4- The discussion section should improve. The discussion section is weak in this situation, and the results are discussed briefly.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your review. Please find attached the answers to your comments.
Kind regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper can be published in the present form.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors revised the comments correctly.
