Next Article in Journal
CNN Based Image Classification of Malicious UAVs
Previous Article in Journal
Controlling Laser Irradiation with Tissue Temperature Feedback Enhances Photothermal Applications: Ex-Vivo Evaluation on Bovine Liver
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Dynamics Analysis and Chaos Identification of Compound Pendulum Jaw Crusher with Joint Clearance

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(1), 238; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13010238
by Shenpeng Wang, Yan Cui * and Chune Wang
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Reviewer 4:
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(1), 238; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13010238
Submission received: 24 November 2022 / Revised: 20 December 2022 / Accepted: 23 December 2022 / Published: 24 December 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presented modeling and simulations of a compound pendulum jaw crusher with joint clearance. A dynamic model was derived from the Lagrange multiplier method, the Lankarani-Nikravesh contact force model and a modified Coulomb friction force model. The numerical solutions via MATLAB of the developed model were compared with ADAMS solutions to validate the model and the solutions. The further numerical simulations based on the developed model were performed to reveal its dynamics including chaos. The investigation yielded some conclusions with engineering significance. The work is relevant to both multibody dynamics and nonlinear dynamics, and is interesting to those researchers in dynamics of mechanisms. The manuscript is essentially acceptable subjected to necessary revisions detailed as follows.

 

Major issues

 

1 Matrix M and vectors Ft and Q in (15) should be defined with expressions like equation (12).

 

2 The further detailed information related to numerical simulations should be added, for examples, the values of the Baumgarte stability factors, the initial conditions, and the transient response times.

 

3 The differences between MATLAB and ADAMS should be showed in separate figures. The collision force difference seems rather large, and some explanations are helpful.

 

Minor points

 

1 An abbreviation L-N without the definition appeared in the Abstract.

 

2 In the first paragraph of the Introduction, experiments were referred without references.

 

3 References should be carefully checked, for examples, uppercase letters or not, publication details (14), family names or given names (6 and 10).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents a dynamic approach to one of the main components of a jaw crusher through an optimal combination of driving speed and clearance size solution for vibration force.

The work developed is, apparently, adequate. However, some terms seem not to be properly translated as, for example, "journal" and "longacurta method". The translation should therefore be revised in order to ensure the confidence of the reader in the used terminology.

In the equations, there is confusion in the description of the variables since there seems to be no distinction between the use of uppercase and lowercase letters. Perhaps because of this, the reviewer could not find the meaning of some of the variables.
Thus, the text needs a general revision in order to clarify all these details.

Some of the references could not be checked.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a well-organized manuscript considering simulations. However, it needs further improvement before it can be considered for publication.
The novelty of the work is questionable and needs to be stated very clearly at the end of the introduction.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript discuss the problem on the dynamics analysis and chaos identification of compound pendulum jaw crusher with joint clearance, in which the joint model is constructed by Lagrange multiplier method. The dynamic performance and nonlinear characteristics of the clearance mechanism are analyzed and some results are obtained. Although the results are good, but they are not well organized. The authors should modify the manuscript under the following points:

1. The introduction should high light the results, novelty, purpose of this article besides adding a good background of literature about the object of the study, also what the authors did in the same line of the study.

2. Conclusion is not written good and didn't illustrate the results good. It should be rewritten.

3. What is the benefits of this study? Compare your results to that obtained by other researchers.

4. Make sure that all symbols are illustrated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop