Prediction and Experimental Validation of Aviation Floating Involute Spline

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Wear Mechanism and Prediction Method of Aviation Floating Involute Spline .

Abstract does not "attract" the reader to continue reviewing the manuscript. It is vague.

Figure 1 needs review in format. Yellow letters can be barely seen. The white text need to be bigger.

Authors use Von Misses Stresses for their work?

Please verify conclusion writting. It is not understandable what authors want to transmit on row 607. 

Referecences should be updates, more recent references should be reviewed (>2020)

What is the value added of your work?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

first of all, the title of the manuscript is not explicite. The words "Wear Mechanism" are not pertinent because the "Prediction model" should take in account the right wear mechanism; and the corresponding experimental verification has also presented in this study. So, something like "Prediction and experimental validation of Aviation Floating Involute Spline in steel 40CrNiMoA".

secondly, in page 2, bewteen line 84 and 98, the description should be improved and more explicite about specificity/originality of the study, the used method, the limited conditions, the prediction working conditions, the studied materiels.

thirdly, the paragraph 2 should be rewritten with right references, with more illustration and less texts (between line 123-132 of page 3 and the whole page 4). At present version, this part is not understandful and not digestive.

fourthly, in paragraph 4.1, it is necessary to define clealrly with illustration, the numbering of teeth, the distance of spine and espacially the Floating distance comparing to the spine goemetry. It is also important to explain explicitely what correspond to the  CSHEAR1 and  CSHEAR2;

fifthly, in paragraph 4.2, it is absolutely necessary to precise the used mechanical properties of the studied steel: elastic limit, maximaum resistance, hardness etc...

Sixthly, before the conclusion part, it is necessary to add a separated discussion part, to leave a global synthesis about the different results;

furthermore, the results presentaiton should be improved largely to lead a minium understanding:

- in the caption of figure 4, it is necessary to precise what correspond to the N, T and the red rectangle;

- in figure 8 and 12, it is necessary to precise what correspond to the h and potion 1/2/3;

- in caption of figure 13 and 15, it is necessary to define where begin the tooth 1 ; 

- in figure 16, 17, 18 and 19, it is necessary to add an observation scale; in caption of the fdigure 16, it is necessaty to precise what correspond to the red cercle;

- in table 4, for the experimental results, it is necessary to assocaite an error or precision with each numerical value;

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

most of remarks from reviewers have been included in the revised version of the manuscript. 

in figure 17, 18, 19 and 20, it is necessary to add an observation scale.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx