A Method and System for Combining the Advantages of Gasoline Compression Ignition (GCI) Engine Technologies into Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1)Article with low scientific soundness and with lo interest to the readers.
2) Experimental and conclusions sections must be improved.
3) There are no formulas in the article.
4) The test results without estimating associated errors are unreliable.
5) Abstract and Figure 1 – optimization criterion.
6) There is no clear contribution from the authors.
Detailed comments
10 create a Powertrain – terminology, right to create the world
33 [3-5], 71 [18-19], 77 [20-21] etc. – a dash (–), not a hyphen
Each drawing must be cross-referenced in the text, e.g. (fig. 1) before their occurrence, before their occurrence.
Figure 1 – some unreadable inscriptions,
Terminology:
56 with a gasoline-like fuel, 131 Exhaust Gas, 152 injection pressures, 167 lower heating value, 415 life cycle
Figure 2 – no CAD units
171 cc/30s ·10Mpa – cc/30 s ·10 MPa
182 15kg/m3 – 15 kg/m3
Figure 3. 4 The fonts in the axis titles are too small
Figure 5. No units
- There should be no subtext between the title of the higher order and the title of the first part of the text of the lower order
298 48V – 48 V
Figure 7. Font too small
Figure 8-10. The inscriptions are pale cane so that they are hardly visible
Figure 9. The gap between the fuel and the engine
Figure 10. Incomprehensible figure, vehicle speed without feeding fuel?
Figure 11. Drawing elements not described on the right
Figure 12. tons CO2eq – t, CO2eq
Literature inconsistent with the Word template.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript. I appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on my manuscript. I am grateful to you your insightful comments on my paper. I have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by you. I have highlighted the changes within the manuscripts.
I am looking forward to hearing from you regarding my revision and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.
Sincerely,
Hyun Woo WON
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
It is necessary to explain the origin and the basic chemical composition of the different low cetane number (CN) fuels used in the experiments, also the paper not describes sufficiently their basic properties.
Poor technical information about the different internal combustion engines used in the experiments.
Figure 3: it is necessary to explain better the center figure (Liquid penetration)
The graph/map of the figure 6 it is cut of the top and need major definition
Figures 9 and 11: the maps are not sufficiently explained, it seems that the operating points do not agree with the engine performance
Author Response
Dear Sir,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript. I appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on my manuscript. I am grateful to you your insightful comments on my paper. I have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by you. I have highlighted the changes within the manuscripts.
I am looking forward to hearing from you regarding my revision and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.
Sincerely,
Hyun Woo WON
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Many comments were ignored; therefore the manuscript cannot be accepted.
No optimization criterion.
Where in the text is the maximization that is manifested in the abstract.
There are no f equations in the article.
The test results without estimating associated errors are unreliable.
28 – globally.. – one dot
Each drawing must be cross-referenced in the text, e.g. (fig. 1) before their occurrence.
Figure 1. This is just an algorithm GCI pathway towards fuel and engine co-optimization, and the graph is unreadable.
125 30-180°C – a dash (–), not a hyphen
139 were added to the test fuels in this study – exactly
Figure 2. From how many averages?
244 CN25=0,736 kg/L, 327 48V – spaces
247 10Mpa – 10 MPa – P capital letter
257 tures (air density 15 kg/m3 – superscript
Figures displaced in the text relative to the captions (1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12)!
515 17.3 ton
535 the application of GCI engines are is optimized – why
Terminology: 228 low cetan, 475, 541 life cycle, injection pressure (where), cylinder pressure (pressure courses)
Figure 11. Drawing elements not described on the right
Figure 12. CO2eq – CO2eq – subscript
Literature inconsistent with the Word template.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
Thank you for fiving me the opportunity to submit again the revision.
In last time, I tried to update my manuscript and figures based on your comment but it should be my correction was not enough for you. Sorry for that and the manuscript has been updated again. please review again my revised manuscript.
In last time, the manuscript has been updated but it was changed somehow (it seems that there are some technical issues of revised document with tracking) the location of figures. In this time, I have highlighted the changes in yellow instead of track changes option.
Best regards,
Hyun Woo WOM
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
148 to 1.5% – ±1.5% – how estimated?
- no explanation of symbols
Figure 11. Drawing elements not described on the right
- 14-17, Valencia, 2010: pp 409-420 – a dash (–), not a hyphen
128 (ρ_CN25=0.736 kg/L, ρ_diesel=0.834 kg/L) (LHV_CN25=43 287 kJ/kg, LHV_diesel=42 660 kJ/kg) – spaces
Terminology: , 494, 507 life cycle, 226, 240 … injection pressure (where), cylinder pressure (pressure courses)
Figure 11. Drawing elements not described on the right.
Literature inconsistent with the Word template.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your comments. I tried to modify the manuscript based on your comments. However, there are some comments, which are not clear for me (some comments are repeated without any additional explanations and that are not clear even for my colleagues).
The manuscript has been updated based on my understanding. In case my modifications are not enough for you, it will be great if you could give some additional explanation for the comments how I can improve my manuscript.
In addition, the manuscript has been checked by native English-speaking colleagues.
Thank you again for your time and efforts.
Best regards,
Hyun Woo WON
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
