Vibration and Aerodynamic Analysis and Optimization Design of a Test Centrifuge

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Please check the references carefully

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This paper conducted a Vibration and Aerodynamic Analysis and Optimization Design of a Test Centrifuge. I do not recommend the publication of this paper due to its obvious flaws and shortcomings in many aspects. Here are the detailed reasons:

1.      Introduction. The summary of the current research situation is insufficient, and there is no explanation of the innovation of their research work.

2.      Numerical model of test centrifuge. The authors only provided a 3D model without providing an FEM model, and the details of FEM modeling, such as mesh type and size, were not explained.

3.      3.2. Harmonic response analysis results. There is only a cloud map of vibration displacement and no vibration response spectrum.

4.      3.3. Optimization design of mounting seat. Optimization requires the use of relevant optimization algorithms, and the authors did not use any efficient and accurate optimization methods, resulting in suboptimal results.

5.      Aerodynamic numerical simulation and structural optimization design of test centrifuge. The authors only conducted grid independence verification without verifying the turbulence model, and cannot determine whether the computational accuracy of the Steady Realizable k-epsilon turbulence model used meets the requirements.

No more comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

No more comments.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

According to the real situation in the actual research, this paper raises questions and analyzes research, and finally finds out a better optimization result through theoretical methods and numerical simulation.

However, this paper still has the following problems:

The first is that this paper is mainly divided into two parts: vibration analysis and structure optimization of the base during centrifuge operation, pneumatic analysis and optimization design of the rotor during centrifuge operation, but the correlation between the two is not very strong.

Secondly, the paper presents three factors that influence the vibration of centrifuge base: the unbalance of the whole machine, the external excitation of the pod and the vibration of the bearing. The vibration analysis section mainly focuses on the vibration analysis of the base, but the reasons for the analysis of the base are not mentioned or insufficient. In the process of vibration analysis of centrifuge base, harmonic response analysis is mentioned, and the response under three kinds of influence loads is linearly superimposed. However, the excitation frequency of the three loads is different, and the maximum value of the total response under the combined action of the three loads is not necessarily the sum of the maximum value of the response under the separate action of the three loads.

The aerodynamic analysis of the structure in this paper is not comprehensive enough. Aerodynamic loads also vibrate the centrifuge base. If the influence of the aerodynamic load on the base is not considered, the installed stable current cover will also have an impact on the overall balance of the centrifuge structure, which should be taken into account. The constraints of optimization are not introduced in this paper, so the optimization results of the steady flow hood can only reflect that the wider the front and back edges, the more stable the performance improvement, but can not reflect the superiority of the final optimization results.

There are a few small questions in the article, such as:

On page 7, line 193, it is stated that the rotation direction of the test centrifuge is clockwise, which is inconsistent with the rotation direction marked in Figure 7 of the page.

In Table 4 on page 7, there is an error in the header, "Mounting seat vibration (mm/s)" is redundant.

On page 8, line 214, you can place the diagram of the centrifuge model to be analyzed in Figure 10.

On page 9, line 231, Figure 10 is not a vortex center diagram, it should be changed to a structure diagram or a model diagram, and the annotation of Figure 10 can also unify the format.

need to be improved

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

please find the file attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

please find the file attached

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This version is already revised according to my last reviewing points.

It can still improved for final publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The paper should be edited by someone who know what engineering and CFD are, otherwise the risk is writing meaningless sentences

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

ATTACHED

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

attached