The Geometric Configuration of Lubricant Recesses of the Polymer Sliding Layer of the Bearing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article investigated an element of bridge bearing steel plate with recesses for lubrication. Two geometrical configurations of recesses are studied: annular groove; spherical well in the engineering software package ANSYS Mechanical APDL. PTFE is considered as an elastic-plastic sliding layer. A comparative analysis of two models with different geometrical configurations of cutouts for lubrication, and with/without taking into account its volume in the recess has been conducted. Within the work framework it has been established: the absence of the lubricant volume in the recess has a bad effect on the structure deformation characteristics; spherical recesses have a number of advantages over annular grooves; a significant influence of the friction coefficients set of the lubricant and the interlayer on the contact parameters of the sliding layer central part. It can be aacepted.

Author Response

Hello.

Thanks for the review.

Best wishes, authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.  Please use the full word “Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)” for PTFE in the Abstract (line 14) and in the content when it is mentioned for the first time (line 83).

2. The manuscript is poorly structured and delivered, which makes it very difficult to follow. The following should be addressed.

2.1.   Please reorganize the structure of the Introduction, including the background, research gaps, objectives and scope, and work being conducted in this work.

2.2.   In Section 3 Results, the content should be reorganized by proper subsections. Many paragraphs are too short and not fully extended. Some paragraphs that are relevant to the same main idea should be combined.

2.3.   In Section 4 Discussions, splitting multiple paragraphs (lines 338-351) is unnecessary and they should be combined into a single paragraph.

3.  In section 2 (lines 116-130), when “numerical modeling”, “mathematical formula” and “model” are mentioned, please be specific and clearly indicate the exact type of modeling, whether it refers to the mathematical simulation, or finite element analysis, or both.

3.1.   The manuscript should sufficiently provide background theory and mathematical correlations that are associated with the modeling presented.

3.2.   Details of Finite Element Analysis modeling, including physics, the number of node elements, and the minimum and maximum of mese size should be described.

4. Lines 141-157: Details of the experimental setup are unclear. Also, “a series of full-scale experiments” mentioned (line 150) is unclear. Please elaborate on the details, including the test method, standard, sample size, equipment, and the number of samples for each repeated experiment.

5. Too many figures are presented separately, and some figures are unclear.

5.1.   Figure 2, please show the dimensions of d_c and h_c in the schematics.

5.2.   Figure 4, the curves for 1,2,3, and 4 are unclear. Please show the legends separately to differentiate their curves.

5.3.   Please combine Figures 5-6, Figures 7-8, Figures 10-11, and Figures 12-13. Indicates their subfigures as (a)-(d).

6.  Discussion:

6.1.   When discussing scientific reasons, please specifically refer to the results for each discussion point.

6.2.   Please clearly state and discuss why the set of base assumptions (lines 321-327) does not significantly affect the findings from this work.

6.3.   The mentioned types of studies and various properties (lines 338-340) should be briefly elaborated.

6.4.   It will be good if the manuscript also talks about the effects of lubricant on the distribution of forces applying stress to the structure.

6.5.   Please be specific when reporting the outcomes and improvements. The level and percentage of improvement should be reported quantitatively. Also, rather than discussing the general observation, it should be clearly stated that the results are for the specific case presented.

7. Conclusions:

7.1.   Please include key scientific reasons for the observed results. For example, why does the absence of lubricant cause harmful effects on structural deformation?

 

7.2.   Please also report key findings quantitatively, especially when an improvement is mentioned to show the impacts, the percentages for the observed changes should be reported.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Presenting multiple short paragraphs distracts the understanding, which makes the manuscript difficult to follow. Paragraphing should be improved.

Author Response

Hello.

We made corrections to the article according to the comments and recommendations. Answer to the review in the attached file.

Best wishes, authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main comments on the manuscript titled "The geometric configuration of lubricant recesses of the polymer sliding layer of the bearing" are given below:

Abstract. There is no quantitative description of research results and main conclusions.

Introduction. This part should be corrected - group of references cannot be used. Each publication should be briefly discussed. Please remove multiple citations, e.g. [1-3], [5-7], [8-13], [34-38], [42-44], [50-61]. Put and describe that which are importenat for the manuscript.

Materials and methods. The research subject and the research methods should be described here, including photos and description of the samples.

Results. There is no results in values. I suggest to add the table with data (on what basis were the charts created?). There is no information on how many times each study was repeated?

Discussion & Conclusions. These parts should be corrected after the additions made to the previous paragraphs.

Author Response

Hello.

We made corrections to the article according to the comments and recommendations. Answer to the review in the attached file.

Best wishes, authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all the comments faithfully and sufficiently. I recommend accepting the manuscript for publishing. 

There are a few more comments to improve the manuscript, as the following. Lines 143 and 163 are unnecessary. The strain tensor is defined in line 229, but it should be well defined earlier since right after Eq. (1), in lines 144-145.

Author Response

Hello.

We made corrections to the article according to the comments and recommendations. Answer to the review in the attached file.

Best wishes, authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have not more comments.

Author Response

Hello.

Thanks for the review.

Best wishes, authors