Study of Double-Deck Vibrating Flip-Flow Screen Based on Dynamic Stiffness Characteristics of Shear Springs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper mainly is of interest to those who work in the field of recycling construction materials or in general in the field of sorting materials. The readers can find a study that reveals the correlation between the proposed theoretical model and the real experimental investigation.

The overall structure of the paper can be considered adequate but there are some point that can be improved. Some of the issues are as follow:

• there is not mentioned the specific reasons for conducting this research;
• there is nothing specified about the numerical simulations;
• r12-13: statement not very clear "Amplitude-frequency and phase-frequency characteristics were verified by an industrial machine."
• r13-15: The concluding part from Abstract is  confusing: "Moreover, the first-order resonances of the main and floating screen frames depend on the stiffness of an isolation spring; the second and third-order resonances depend on the stiffness of shear springs." ... should we understand that when was designed there was expected other behavior? If yes, which one?
• r25: a reference to  regulations that impose that limit is recommended to be specified;
• r26-28: please rephrase such that the enumeration to be more clear (too many "and"s);
• r64-65: The statement "Second-order and third-order resonance occurred in the main and floating screen frames." should be revised because raise the question why that resonances occur?
• Please check the nomenclature:
  - m1-m2 seem to be masses, sounds strange to be named "quality";
  - an entry doesn't have notation (see after K3);
• Last sentence from the Conclusions section sounds like an advertisement for the studied machines. As it is not proposed or built by the authors this approach is questionable.
• References list and citation style seem to be different than that indicated in instructions for authors;
• Not all references are cited in the text.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

The authors thank the reviewer for the most helpful and significant contribution, the comments and suggestions have been included in the revised manuscript, please see the attachment and the revised manuscript.

Best whishes!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1 . The Abstract is too long, and it should be rewritten. The abstract should be focused on Purpose, the developed approach, Findings and Originality.

 

2. There are numerous places in the text with English grammatical errors. The authors should be full checking for grammar and mistakes to meet the quality of Journal.

 

 

3. Most equations in the paper, the authors don't mention to any references. Add citation to the equations which took from references.

 

4. Add a new flowchart to explain the details of the selected approach.

 

5. 5. There are many research papers study the same problem that investigated in the present paper. What is exactly the new point of this work?

The authors should focus to clarify this issue in the paper.

 

6. The meaning of the conclusions is unclear, and there are grammatical errors. The authors should think over the real significance of their results and try to rewrite this section to improve understanding of the conclusions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

The authors thank the reviewer for the most helpful and significant contribution, the comments and suggestions have been included in the revised manuscript, please see the attachment and the revised manuscript.

Best whishes!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Good work!
Major remarks (need explanation):
1. Scheme (fig. 3) is asymmetric. Accordingly, there will be angular displacements of the masses. Authors need arguments as to why they do not consider them.
2. In Fig.3 the scheme is shown horizontally. In reality, the screen is set at an angle (fig.4).
3. Please, add engine power values ​​in table 1.
4. Must be a space after E_c in 351 row.  

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

The authors thank the reviewer for the most helpful and significant contribution, the comments and suggestions have been included in the revised manuscript, please see the attachment and the revised manuscript.

Best whishes!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have covered the initial raised issues, so it can be accepted for publication after there are performed few language/grammar improvements. Some of the observations or points to be checked if they are correct are listed below,

eg. line 1: "Through the experiments on an industrial screen, studied ...", line 19 "At the frequency was 75 rad/s"

line 28-29 "Some of the legislations such as The Waste Framework Directive 
(2008/98/EC)[10] of the EU waste management legislations ..." is suggested to be reformulated in order to avoid word repetition;

line 85: manufacturer of the equipment is recommended to be mentioned;

In Fig 3 excitation force and its components are not represented;

Check if the last terms from eq. 9 are the expected one;

Title of some subchapters 2.1, 4.1.1. "In the x direction" (x direction can be replaced by horizontal direction),  4.1.2 (here vertical direction), 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 can be improved 

Explanations of figs 10-13 can be inserted for clarity in the caption of the figures remaining only the subfigures letters;

Caption of fig. 14 can be improved (" 13, 13 the amplitude-frequency ...
" is not clear enough) 

the citation style has been updated but shouldn't be set as superscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

We have revised the manuscript as your good suggestions.

Thanks for your work.

Best wishes! 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made all required corrections.

The paper now is accepted without any changes.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thanks for your helpful and good suggestion, we had revised the language style and comments.

Best wishes!