Thermal Model and Thermal Analysis of the Dual Drive Sliding Feed System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, authors reported the thermal modeling and analysis for a dual drive sliding feed system based on the finite element method and experimental comparison. Based on their analysis, the error of the axial thermal deformation of the screw between simulation and experimental results is less than 10%. Overall, the paper is worth publishing with the following concerns as well as the English writing improvements. 

1. The authors explored the analysis of a dual drive sliding feed system using the finite element method. However, most recent work has been extensively studied using the data-driven method. I think this paper will be more complete if authors can add one more section using a data-driven or statistical method to model the axial deformation based on the measured temperature data. Some related work can be found here: 

Zhu, Mengrui, Yun Yang, Xiaobing Feng, Zhengchun Du, and Jianguo Yang. "Robust modeling method for thermal error of CNC machine tools based on random forest algorithm." Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 34, no. 4 (2023): 2013-2026

Ye, Honghan, Xinyuan Wei, Xindong Zhuang, and Enming Miao. "An Improved Robust Thermal Error Prediction Approach for CNC Machine Tools." Machines 10, no. 8 (2022): 624.

2. At the end of first section, especially in line 75-80, authors can add more details for readers to follow. For example, authors can say "Then, in section 2, the thermal boundary conditions of the dual drive sliding feed system, including the heat generation, the TCR between components and the heat transfer coefficient are solved separately. On this basis, a finite element simulation model of the dual drive sliding feed system is established in section 3 to analyze the thermal characteristics of the dual drive sliding feed system. The accuracy of the established thermal estimation model in terms of temperature rise characteristics and axial deformation is also verified through experiments in section 4. And conclusions will be provided in section 5." Similarly, after line 111, authors can add more details for readers to follow, like "In the following, the details of each friction torque will be provided through section 2.2 to 2.4, respectively."

3. What is the relationship between equation (2) and (3)? Is the M_d in (2) the same as the sum of M_dj in (3) over all j? Similarly, what is the relationship between equation (6) and (7), and equation (8) and (9)?

4. The content in line 193 should be deleted as it is redundant. 

5. In Table 6, what is the meaning of "2.56+"? Should be a typo. Besides, there is an extra underline below T2 for operating condition II. 

6. In both abstract and conclusion, when talking about error, we prefer using "less than 6%" or "less than 10%" over "not more then".

7. In Figure 10 - (f), what is the meaning of "癈" on the legend? should be a typo.

8. Some future direction should be discussed in the Conclusion. 

9. In the introduction, the research gap is not clear enough to me. Is this the first work to analyze a dual drive sliding feed system? If so, authors need to stress it. In addition, authors mention that "The dual drive sliding feed system still operates very differently from conventional transmission components." But they did not explain what the difference is. Authors need to explain it more to make it clear and highlight their contributions. 

10. In line 76, please express the full name of TCR when it appears first in the main text (not including the abstract).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing of this paper needs significant improvements, especially on the punctuation between sentences.

For example, in line 10-12, it should be like ".... transmission process, this results in ...".

In line 45-47, it should be like "... extremely complex to obtain ..."

In line 162 - 164, it should be like "... sliding screw pair, the grease must be... ".

In line 270 - 272, it should be like "... by the system, it is necessary...".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with the thermo-mechanical modelling of dual drive sliding system.

The comments and recommendations are as follows:

·         The main aim of the paper is not clear enough. Should it be the validation of transient thermo-mechanical task, validation of heat sources modeling and boundary conditions, or analysis of the drive system loss of accuracy due to thermal displacement? Please explain

·         Is the drive system equipped with linear scale for direct measuring the table position? If yes, the screw thermal elongation is compensated by the drive control. Please introduce

·         Please explain the parameters P, B, gamma, sum rho, E’ in eq. 5 - 8

·         The origin of eq. 12 – 19 should be described

·         The description of the loading conditions in experiment and corresponding FE simulation is missing. Does the table periodically move within the whole stroke, or is placed statically? Please describe

·         Results in Tab 4 have no direct meaning regarding the drive system transient behaviour. At which point is the axial elongation measured? The table should be skipped

·         The results in Fig. 10 show a nice match between the model and measurement

·         Expressing the temperature error in % based on values in °C in Tab. 6 is a non-sense. Thermodynamic scale begins at 0 K!

·         Conclusions are not clear enough: will the results be used for e.g. design of a cooling system?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

·         In many sentences the verb is missing, or the meaning is not captured. In some cases it seems, that the following main sentence should actually be the continuation of the previous one, e.g. lines 69 – 70, 72 – 73, 88 – 89 and many others

·         Some sentences are difficult to understand. Please improve.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented paper deals with the actual issue of temperature distribution and screw shaft deformation in the modern dual sliding feed system. The authors provide extensive research supported by mathematical models, experimental analysis, and numerical simulation.

However, there are some small issues which could be improved:
- the verb is missing in a few sentences. Please check the grammar.
- in row 93 you referred to previous research. You could add the reference if it was published.
- in row 194 you mentioned 6 major heat sources, but you described only 4. Please, provide the correction.
- several words from Tab.1 were cut off. It is also unclear which components are for the Heat production column, and which are for the CHTCs column. I recommend dividing the Tab. into two (one for Heat production, and one for CHTCs).
- in row 279 you wrote: “the finite element analysis approach was used to provide useful recommendations for the optimization design of machine tools”. However, you did not mention any recommendations for the optimization design of machine tools in the conclusion. Could you add them, or explain how you meant it?
- in Tab.3 you wrote Gpa instead of GPa.
- in Tab.3 you determined the material of the Base/bearing housing as “steel”. Could you be more specific? (Mentioned materials GCr15 and 40Cr are also steels.)
- you placed Fig.6 and Fig.7 in the middle of the paragraph. Move them above or below the paragraph.
- you placed the paragraph in the middle of Fig.10. Move it above or below Fig.
- you should not use Chinese signs in Fig.10-f.
- you are using dual numbering of the references in the References.
- the reference 13 has incorrect writing of authors. You wrote authors “Ba Dinh Bui, Naoki Uchiyama, Kenneth Renny Simba” as “B.D.B. A, N.U. A, K.R.S.A. B”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all my concerns. I recommend it for publication. Congratulations! 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your constructive suggestions and comments, which have significantly elevated the quality of our manuscript.

With best regards,

Haiyang Liu

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Use just max. one digit in the values of displacement, or temperature. More digits have no meaning with respect to FE numerical uncertainity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf