A General Stroke-Based Model for the Straightening Process of D-Type Shaft

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A well written paper: Some improvements are recommended:

Line 213 Bausinger  should be corrected (Bauschinger)

Units should be separated from numbers:  210GPa,235MPa, 280mm

With resepct to your conclusion: "The experimental and  simulation results prove the correctness of the theoretical straightening stroke prediction model": 

Quantifications of the  deviations between experimental and numerical results as presented in Figure 19 and Figure 20 should be specified and analysed or explained.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. It seems that D-shape could be clearly shown/highlighted in Fig. 1.
2. The Authors provide some application information of D-type shafts in the introduction. This refers to transmission and support components in mechanical structures and robots, motor shafts, gear shafts of cars. These specific applications could be discussed in details in terms of D-type shaft placement.
3. It seems that the reference list could be expanded in terms of D-type shafts studies.
4. Sections 2 and 3 seem like general-theoretical. The Authors contributions should be specified here. If D-shape geometry of a shaft is discussed using principles obtained in other studies, this should be mentioned.
5. Section 4.1 provides FEM analysis, however simulation results are presented only by pictures with stress and deformation distribution shown in Fig. 15. It seems that this Section should be presented with more detailed results and conclusions based on FEM analysis.
6. It is not clear how theoretical and experimental results have been verified. Comparison diagrams in Figs. 19 and 20 should be explained. There are no references to Figs. 19 and 20 in the manuscript. Also the explanation of correctness of the theoretical model to the experimental and simulation results should be clearly clarified in the manuscript.
7. The Authors state that they pretend to a novel method for the establishment of the special shaped bar stock straightening model. Such a statement requires substantiation based on the previous studies on special shaped objects investigation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Review

 General Stroke-Based Model for the Straightening Process of D-type Shaft

  Data of the measurements, finite element model and data theoretically computed were able to test the original proposed hypotheses. The authors adhered precisely to the registered experimental procedures and were able to sufficiently justify any changes. The authors’ conclusions were justified given the data.

Comments:

Row 105: Please correct:  The strain and stress at z… respectively

Row 109: Please explain what is ρ,maybe R

Row 152: Please describe quantity I, maybe moment of inertia

Rows 160, 183-188: Please introduce the references of the equations (12), (13) and (20), (21) and (22)

Row 225:  Why the straightening strokes are so different between the Fig. 11 and Figs. 12 and 13. Maybe 229-334 rows explaining it.

Row 257: Please describe the software for FEM (name, producer, country of producer)

Row 271: Please describe the test machine (name, producer, country of producer)

Row 273:  How was the loading speed or stroke speed.

In Figure 20 is missing the initial deflection letter

Row 301: The analyze of errors between methods is suitable

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1) In terms of our Comment #4 at 1^st review round: we still would like to invite the Authors to specify their contributions in Sec. 3. It seems that the number of mathematical equations could be minimized here as far as this section is overloaded with mathematical equations. We suggest leaving here only key equations, while other equations could be moved to supplementary materials. 

2) Tables 2 and 3 have been added. It seems that divergences (in %) between FEM and Theoretical results in Table 2 as well as between Experimental and Theoretical results in Table 3 could be added.

3) That would be better if values of γ in Tables 2 and 3 could be with similar intervals – 0, 30, 60, 90. So, that is reasonable to add values of γ=30 and γ=60 in Table 3.

4) It seems that the phrase “providing a novel method for the establishment of the special shaped bar stock straightening model” (in the last sentence of the conclusion) could be removed. If the Authors would like to leave in here, it requires appropriate explanation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf