Assessment of Tire Features for Modeling Vehicle Stability in Case of Vertical Road Excitation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• Figure 1 align horizontally according to the level.
• 186 Table1 is missing a space.
• There are no spaces before and after the hyphen in the text (for example, lines 195 and 196).
• It is not clear whether the figures are taken from sources or custom (for example, Figures 2 and 3).
• Figure 4 lacks explanations for the text.
• Figure 5 does not give me a clear description of coordinates 1 and 2.
• 310 Tire tread patterns should be written. Why is 1 converted to A, 2 to B, etc. in Figures 8 and 9. It's a bit confusing and misleading.
• 529 ..... (something is missing) of the stiffness of the ........
• 604 Is this name correct (asphalt concrete)?
• The individual lines in Figures 20 to 22 are difficult to read. I suggest redesigning the line style.
• 428 Errors in the text "moduli".
• 667 Is the designation "front wing" correct?
• 764 I suggest unifying the concepts of sprung and unsprung, somewhere damped and undaped are used.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this research, a refined dynamic vehicle model is developed for the analysis of vehicular directional stability. Intensive efforts are devoted to the investigation of tire-road interactions, including the tire properties, the deformation properties of the ring, and the tread deformation. A mechanical model is built to simulate the vehicle-road interaction. An experimental test is implemented using a probe vehicle. The topic of this research is very interesting. However, major revision is necessary before further recommendations can be made for publication on Applied Sciences. Please see below for a list of comments.

1. As indicated in the title, the subject of this research is the “Directional Stability” of a vehicle. However, it is not clearly defined in the context what the “Directional Stability” means for a specific vehicle. Please clarify.
2. Following the questions above, the authors fail to present the analysis results of vehicular “Directional Stability” in this research. For example, in the experimental study in Section 3, all presented results are about the vehicle responses under road excitations. Most probably, these results are closely related to the vehicular “Directional Stability”. However, the authors need to articulate their relationship and present the results of “Directional Stability” analysis. Otherwise, the authors may need to change their title to one more closely related to and supported by the presented results in this manuscript.
3. In the 1^st conclusion in Section 5, the authors mentioned the safe speed. However, the authors fail to recommend a safe speed whether in the numerical or experimental analysis. Hence, this conclusion is not well supported by this research.
4. The results of experimental study are not well prepared with that of numerical analysis. Please consider adding more comparisons.
5. Section 2 is too lengthy. Please considering rewriting it in a concise manner.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the paper no specific part was devoted to sum up which criteria were directly possessed as the directional stability criteria. So maybe in conclusions or discussion it would be advisable to directly point out which criteria are the best and why.

In line 572 the 2D model has not been mentioned at all. maybe it should be advisable to devote a few lines to mention wherther it plays any important role and why it has not been considered in the further part of the article.

 

Minor requests:

- line 186 space bwtween table and 1;

- line 203 single apostrophe instead of double

- spaces between the symbols, the texts and the dashes, e.g. v - velocity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made significant modifications to improve the quality of the manuscript. However, the following comments need to be further considered before it can be accepted for publication.

1. The authors are suggested to modify the title so that it can be well supported by the presented analysis in this manuscript.
2. The authors are suggested to shorten Section 2 which is too long for a journal article.
3. The following publications need to be reviewed to comprehensively cover the previous works in this area.
   
   1. Loprencipe, G., Zoccali, P., & Cantisani, G. (2019). Effects of vehicular speed on the assessment of pavement road roughness. Applied Sciences, 9(9), 1783.
   2. Zhang, Z., Sun, C., Sun, M., & Bridgelall, R. Application of a Machine Learning Method to Evaluate Road Roughness from Connected Vehicles. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part B: Pavements. 144.4 (2018): 04018043
   3. Zoccali, P., Loprencipe, G., & Lupascu, R. C. (2018). Acceleration measurements inside vehicles: Passengers’ comfort mapping on railways. Measurement, 129, 489-498.
   4. Zhang, Z., Sun, C., Sun, M., & Bridgelall, R. Road profile reconstruction using connected vehicle responses and wavelet analysis. Journal of Terramechanics. 80 (2018): 21-30.
   5. Blekhman, I., & Kremer, E. (2017). Vertical-longitudinal dynamics of vehicle on road with unevenness. Procedia engineering, 199, 3278-3283.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have significantly revised the manuscript following the suggestions of the reviewers. The manuscript can be accepted as it is.