Performance Calculations of Gas Turbine Engine Components Based on Particular Instrumentation Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. What was the purpose of this research?Is an application to the real engine possible?
2. According to the reviewer, the weakness of the article is the poor Introduction chapter.
3. The novelty aspect of this work has not been adequately highlighted.
4. It is difficult to find confirmation of the adopted model in the results of experimental research, or their presentation is not clear.

Author Response

The purpose of this research was detailed in the Abstract chapter and Chapter five with the real application on the TV2-117A engine.

We modified the introduction part, where we added from line 49 to line 64, where we provided a more detailed perspective of the content.

The aspect of novelty is how easy the calculation algorithm and applicability are when studying on real turboshaft engines, as we presented in the Introduction chapter, Chapter 6 and the Discussion at chapter 7.

The adopted confirmation model was described between the line 293 and line 310 and Chapter 7 (Discussion).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

See attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The nomenclature section was done at line 370 with every parameter involved in our calculation algorithm.

We made some modifications on grammar and syntax errors, and if it's necessary to make other modifications, please let us know and we will use the MDPI service.

We make a supplementary short description on the Chapter 1 (Introduction) between line 49 - line 64. Another modification can be found at line 151 line 156, about the accuracy of measurement. A series of data from different sources was presented in Chapter 7 useful for comparing with the measurement results, and we presented the Discussion chapter (Number 8).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

chapter 2.1

formula (1) is too general. Gases are compressible, so the density depends on the pressure. Please write how it has been taken into account

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the methods presented in Fig. 1 Please compare these methods in the context of their application to research.

The authors described in great detail the mathematical model on the basis of which the individual parameters are calculated. Chapter 6 contains very little research. There is no analysis of these results and no verification of the method. This chapter needs to be significantly expanded.

Author Response

We changed the formula (1) from the Subchapter 2.1, where we presented the density and the velocity as functions of pressure, temperature and Mach number, that can be found at line 76 - line 80.

We presents the advantages and disadvantages of the methods from Figure 1, that can be found at line 89 and line 97.

The Chapter 6 was expended with more explications of the data results about the comparative analysis between the measurement data and the calculated data, defined through the differences percentages variations, that can be found between line 293 and line 310, and we provided a Discussion chapter (Chapter number 7).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors, please see below a few suggestions to enhance your manuscript:

• Please proof-read your work, as there are many grammar and syntax errors.
• The equations that you used, need citations.
• The literature review can get better, including more peer reviewed sources.
• A discussion session is required after the results and before the conclusions.

Author Response

We tried to improve the grammar and the syntax of our manuscript, but if it's necessary to make a more better changes in our syntax, we will use the MDPI service.

The equations were given general citation, at Chapter 4 (between line 176 and line 179).

We added more sources about engine data information, useful for our comparative analysis.

We added the Discussion chapter (Chapter number 7) in which we presented different analysis of our results.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

See attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We made some modifications regarding the syntax and grammar part.

We also added the comparison section, to point the accuracy of the method with the manufacturer data and other sources, page 15 and page 16.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

no comments

Author Response

We made some modifications regarding the citations of our equations and we added one more reference.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors, many thanks for the amended version.

With regards to what you say as adding a 'general citation' , there is no such information at the lines 176-179 that you are mentioning at your reply.

The new list of references contains only two additional references, that I am afraid are not peer reviewed. In essence, the rationale behind adding more peer reviewed references has also to do with using them to critically reflect on your results, at the 'discussion' session. The added 'discussion' session for instance, contains no citations.

Best regards,

Ilias

 

Author Response

Good morning,

Thank you for your feedback.

We analyzed the "general citation" and we added a paragraph at line 179-181 where we mention that the equations that we used in the mathematical algorithm are from the source and the steps was performed by us. We also added the citations before some equations or tables, when there was no citations, for instance, at line 166 and line 168. The rest of the equations, have the proper citation where we explained the definition for each parameter, for instance, for the mass air flow at line 81.

At the "Discussion" session, we added the citation from the manufacturer manual and the reference about the algorithm regarding the measured data at line 320 and at the comparison section, at line 327.

We added one more references, useful for the comparison section.

The citations that we added before, were used in the comparison section with our results so that we can have a common base to talk about at the Discussion section and the Conclusions section.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Some aspects from my previous review are still missing:

1. There hasn’t been a critique of similar methods in the form of a literature review.
2. Although the accuracy to publicly available engine data has been included, it provides no accuracy comparison to other documented studies that have used similar/analogous prediction methods. 
3. The references are old and whilst this is understandable (in terms of the formulation of the methods), there have been other papers that discuss this in detail and it would give the paper more credibility to consider these papers.
4. The paper still has grammatical/typographical errors and should be spell-checked and proof-read by someone who has a high grasp/proficiency of English (reading and writing)

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

This article was realized with the main purpose of comparison between our results from the algorithm and the engine manual data, or other sources. Aside from our references we have not found other credible references to consider for our comparison section for this particular engine.

Regarding the references, because we needed other sources, to make a comparison section at the Discussion chapter, we made an effort to find data for this particular engine and not from the engine manual.

The proof-read problem on our article was dealt with, and we tried to fix our problem with the syntax or grammatical errors.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

I think that my previous comments have been only marginally taken into account. I do not believe that the manuscript has been substantially enhanced following the comments received at the previous round.

Best regards, 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We added at line 180-185 (Chapter 4, first paragraph) the explanation regarding the citations for the equations that are used in our algorithm.

We modified the Discussion session with citations, where was needed.

The proof-read problem on our article was dealt with, and we tried to fix our problem with the syntax or grammatical errors.

Regarding the references, because we needed other sources, to make a comparison section at the Discussion chapter, we made an effort to find data for this particular engine and not from the engine manual.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx