Finite Element Study on Stability in the Femoral Neck and Head Connection to Varying Geometric Parameters with the Relates Implications on the Effect of Wear
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see closed file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
You can find the answers in the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This study seeks to assess the impact of the conical contact scenario on the stability of the conical junction between a Titanium alloy stem and a Ceramic head under two distinct conditions. This assessment is conducted using finite element analysis (FEM) and focuses on variations in taper angle and contact area. The text does not adhere to the expected clarity and scientific paper style. For instance, there are instances, such as line 100, where citations are placed after the period, i.e., at the end of the sentence, rather than before it. This formatting inconsistency is evident in both citations and figures. Additionally, the tables and figures lack proper formatting. The following comments highlight the areas that require attention and correction:
1. In the context of the abstract, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion, the term "voltage" seems to be used metaphorically or inaccurately. The correct term to use in this context should likely be "stress" or "stress concentration" instead of "voltage". when the abstract mentions "voltages higher than 500 Mpa" in the context of femoral prosthesis rupture, it's likely referring to stress levels exceeding 500 megapascals (MPa) in certain areas of the prosthesis. This stress could potentially lead to structural failure, such as rupture or deformation of the prosthesis. It's important to note that using "voltage" in this context is not technically accurate and might be a translation error or a misunderstanding. The correct term for mechanical stress in materials science and engineering is "stress," not "voltage".
2. The figures are not clear, the text within them being challenging to discern due to variations in fonts and sizes. Additionally, there seems to be misalignment between the left and right sides of Figure 4. Moreover, the table adjacent to Figure 6 would benefit from having reduced dimensions for both its size and fonts to enhance clarity and readability.
3. In the section concerning boundary and loading conditions, you presented the resultant force applied to the head of the prosthesis. However, there are two aspects that require clarification:
a) The direction of the resultant force remains unspecified. It's essential to elaborate on the angle at which the resultant force was applied to the head of the prosthesis, considering the possibility of various angles for a planar force application.
b) The specific point on the prosthesis head where this force was applied is not indicated. Could you provide information on how you determined the point of application and calculated these values?"
4. It is evident from Figure 8 that the Ansys student version has been utilized. It's important to note that the utilization of the student version is typically not permissible for publication purposes. Could you kindly provide an explanation for this choice? Please see the following link:
https://forum.ansys.com/forums/topic/ansys-student-license-and-availability-for-phd-thesis-and-articles/#:~:text=Note%20that%20we%20are%20not,solve%20homework%20problems%20and%20assignments.
Author Response
You can find the answers in the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In Ref 30, the friction coefficient is equal to 0.3, not 0.2. To verify it.
Best regards,
Some revisions are necessary.
Author Response
It has been checked the friction coefficient how required.
It has been checked the english language
Reviewer 2 Report
My comments have been addressed; I suggest accepting the manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you
Best regards
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
OK.
It could be approved.
