Next Article in Journal
Study and Verification of a New Method to Test the Bonding Ability between Basalt Fiber and Asphalt Mortar
Next Article in Special Issue
Design of a Bubble Reactor for Altitude Simulators Used to Humidify a Combustion Air Stream by Means of CFD Multi-Phase Models
Previous Article in Journal
Modification of Olive Leaves’ Surface by Ultrasound Cavitation. Correlation with Polyphenol Extraction Enhancement
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of Exhaust Gas Recirculation on Gaseous Emissions of Turbocharged Spark-Ignition Engines
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Study, Development and Prototyping of a Novel Mild Hybrid Power Train for a City Car: Design of the Turbocharger

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(1), 234; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11010234
by Roberto Capata 1,* and Enrico Sciubba 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(1), 234; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11010234
Submission received: 18 October 2020 / Revised: 18 December 2020 / Accepted: 22 December 2020 / Published: 29 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Emission Control in Hybrid Vehicles)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

-Line 65: m must be m dot

-Line 71: the "L" parameter/symbol is not defined in the list of symbol and not even in the text.

-I am pretty sure that the compressor maps in figure 1 and 3 are identical. In the text it is written that the map in the figure 3 should show the performance improvement given by the new design. It is mandatory to amend that. Also would be nice and much appreciated to provide a direct comparison by overlapping the two compressor maps and highlighting the differences.

-Line 227: electrical efficiency is mentioned but no figures are given. They must be included for the readers and for supporting the work presented in the manuscript.

Author Response

Line 65: m must be m dot

Corrected, thanks

-Line 71: the "L" parameter/symbol is not defined in the list of symbol and not even in the text.

Corrected, thanks

-I am pretty sure that the compressor maps in figure 1 and 3 are identical. In the text it is written that the map in the figure 3 should show the performance improvement given by the new design. It is mandatory to amend that. Also would be nice and much appreciated to provide a direct comparison by overlapping the two compressor maps and highlighting the differences.

We insert figure 3 with the comparison between the actual GT12 and out tandem solution

-Line 227: electrical efficiency is mentioned but no figures are given. They must be included for the readers and for supporting the work presented in the manuscript.

Corrected, thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

  • Insert the symbol and description of ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) in Nomenclature;
  • I purpose to complete the Chapter 1 (Introduction) with the advantages of decoupling the compressor to turbine, because one of the disadvantages of unit compressor/turbine consists in high inertia in accelerate regime. The solution concept isn't the new one. It is necessary to describe the other solutions too (some of them equip some engines on military vehicles). 

  • In line 65, the correct formula is with dm/dt

  • Describe the terms used in the equation (1), ??,?np, and k. Similar for terms that are using in the equation (2).

  • In figure 1, insert  the explanations of term p2c/p1c and the X-axis parameter

  • In Table 1 and 2, to complete in 3rd column, Compressor rpm.

  • In the figure 3, insert the notations a) and b) next to graphs.

  • Some technical information or/and mathematical model, describing the unit compressor/turbine geometry or working, that are linked to references must be included in short form in the paper. In the same time, refer to the figure no.3, must to present shortly the experimental test procedure in order to obtain the characteristics of the modified compressor even that it is explained in the [13].

Author Response

Insert the symbol and description of ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) in Nomenclature;

Done, thanks

I purpose to complete the Chapter 1 (Introduction) with the advantages of decoupling the compressor to turbine, because one of the disadvantages of unit compressor/turbine consists in high inertia in accelerate regime. The solution concept isn't the new one. It is necessary to describe the other solutions too (some of them equip some engines on military vehicles). 

Corrected, thanks

In line 65, the correct formula is with dm/dt

Corrected, thanks

Describe the terms used in the equation (1), ??,?,  np, and k. Similar for terms that are using in the equation (2).

Nomeclature has been figured out

In figure 1, insert  the explanations of term p2c/p1c and the X-axis parameter

Corrected, thanks

 In Table 1 and 2, to complete in 3rd column, Compressor rpm.

Corrected, thanks

In the figure 3, insert the notations a) and b) next to graphs.

Figure 3 has been changed and explained

Some technical information or/and mathematical model, describing the unit compressor/turbine geometry or working, that are linked to references must be included in short form in the paper. In the same time, refer to the figure no.3, must to present shortly the experimental test procedure in order to obtain the characteristics of the modified compressor even that it is explained in the [13].

Done, thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No suggestions

Back to TopTop