Investigation on Characterization of Typical Characteristic in Compressor Based on Flat Plate Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
On page 18 sentence affirm: 'There is an error of 3.6% between the calculated results and the tube acoustic modal frequency of 530Hz measured by Welsh' - Is it an error in reality? Or it may be a difference between the assessments only? The same in conclusion 3).
On page 19 'β mode regime in Parker resonance' - is simply 'β mode in Parker resonance', because 'mode regime' is looking like doubling the term 'mode'. The same in conclusion 3).
In conclusion 3) once again 'the characterization of the characteristics and mechanism' should be better 'the characterization of the mechanism'
In abstract: 'The acoustic analogy method is suitable for the characterization of the acoustic resonance performance and mechanism in the pipeline. It can effectively characterize the typical characteristic of the acoustic resonance in the compressor, which can provide guidance for the investigation of the acoustic resonance mechanism and in an aero-engine compressor.'
Other mistakes in the text:
1) It is very difficult to meet the test requirements with conventional acoustic microphones over such ambient. - something missed, I suggest 'environment' at the end of the sentence
2) The characteristic frequency sound signal is same one sound wave at the different axial positions of the compressor, and the propagation state of the it in the compressor flow channel is a helix structure.
The characteristic frequency sound signal is the same sound wave at the different axial positions of the compressor, and its propagation state in the compressor flow channel is a helix structure.
3) The typical Parker resonance regime occurs in the rectangular tube model by the calculation method proposed in the paper, which characterizes the distribution characteristics of the shedding vortices at the acoustic resonance condition in detail.
Author Response
Point 1: On page 18 sentence affirm: 'There is an error of 3.6% between the calculated results and the tube acoustic modal frequency of 530Hz measured by Welsh' - Is it an error in reality? Or it may be a difference between the assessments only? The same in conclusion 3).
Response 1: Thanks for you suggestion. The resonance frequency of 520Hz is the result of numerical calculation. The resonance frequency of 530Hz is the obtained experimentally by Wlesh. This error is mainly caused by the inaccurate setting of some empirical parameters in the numerical calculation
Point 2: On page 19 'β mode regime in Parker resonance' - is simply 'β mode in Parker resonance', because 'mode regime' is looking like doubling the term 'mode'. The same in conclusion 3).
Response 2: The ‘β mode regime in Parker resonance’ is ‘β mode in Parker resonance’. This mistake had been revised
Point 3: In conclusion 3) once again 'the characterization of the characteristics and mechanism' should be better 'the characterization of the mechanism'
Response 3: The mistake ‘the characterization of the characteristics’had been revised as ‘the characterization of the mechanism’ in the paper.
Point 4: In abstract: 'The acoustic analogy method is suitable for the characterization of the acoustic resonance performance and mechanism in the pipeline. It can effectively characterize the typical characteristic of the acoustic resonance in the compressor, which can provide guidance for the investigation of the acoustic resonance mechanism and in an aero-engine compressor.'
Response 4: This mistake had been revised in the paper.
Point 5: It is very difficult to meet the test requirements with conventional acoustic microphones over such ambient. - something missed, I suggest 'environment' at the end of the sentence
Response 5: ‘environment’ had been added at the end of the corresponding sentence
Point 6: The characteristic frequency sound signal is same one sound wave at the different axial positions of the compressor, and the propagation state of the it in the compressor flow channel is a helix structure. The characteristic frequency sound signal is the same sound wave at the different axial positions of the compressor, and its propagation state in the compressor flow channel is a helix structure.
Response 6: The mistakes on this sentence had been revised in the paper.
Point 7: The typical Parker resonance regime occurs in the rectangular tube model by the calculation method proposed in the paper, which characterizes the distribution characteristics of the shedding vortices at the acoustic resonance condition in detail.
Response 7: Thanks a lot for your guidance. The mistake in this sentence had been revised.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The article is well conditioned scientifically. I for one am satisfied with the changes made. The paper may be published as is. Well done.
Regards
Author Response
Point 1: The article is well conditioned scientifically. I for one am satisfied with the changes made. The paper may be published as is. Well done.
Response 2: Thanks a lot for your comment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I have had the chance to look at the revision and am satisfied with the changes. The paper can be published in its present form.
Review details in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: Failure to define the explicit purpose of the study in this paper.
Response 1: Thank you for your gudiance. The explicit purpose of the study in abstract had been rewritten.
Point 2: Lack of reference to both expected and predicted research results (analysis, model, simulations), as well as reference to important observations and final conclusions reflected in practical applications.
Response 2: These deficiencies in the abstract had been amended.
Point 3: Failure to maintain unambiguous writing of some sequences/words, e.g. aeroengine (pp. 1, 3-4) and aero-engine (pp. 1, 3, 6, 20), or e.g. 1402Hz (p. 9) and 1402 Hz (p. 10) or in tables, etc. Please check the entire paper in this regard.
Response 3: These mistakes had been revised.
Point 4: Incorrect numbering of figures, starting on p. 14, respectively in the case of figure 10, resulting in incorrectly numbered figures 12-17 (pp. 15-19). In addition, I did not find in the text of this paper both a reference to Figure 7 and a duplication of the reference to Figure 4, for example, on p. 10. Please check the entire paper in this regard and make appropriate corrections.
Response 4: These mistakes had been revised.
Point 5: Using sequences that are too short in the paper, e.g. The total number ... on page 13, or The acoustic resonance ... on page 18. Please check the entire article and correct the above inaccuracies
accordingly.
Response 5: These mistakes had been revised in detail.
Point 6: From the methodological aspect, in my opinion, it is not recommended to present figures/tables in the concluding part of the chapter/subchapter, as was done in this article, e.g. Fig. 3 (subchapter 3.1). Also, it is not advisable to split the tables, as was done in the case of Tables 1-2, presented on pages 9-10 and 11-12, respectively. Please make an appropriate correction inthis regard.
Response 6: These mistakes had been revised in detail.
Point 7: Minor editing errors observed both in the main body of the paper in terms of failure to maintain unambiguous writing and use of punctuation marks, e.g., Sator1 on pp. 1 and 12; description of Figures 4a and 4b on pp. 8-9; description of Figure 10 and its reference in the text on p. 14; lack of spaces in ... 3mm.The total number ... on p. 13, or Institude… on p. 20, etc., as well as in the appendix of the research literature list included in the final part of the paper, e.g., items 8, 17 in terms of failure to maintain unambiguous writing and use of punctuation marks. Please check the entire article in this regard.
Response 7: These mistakes pointed above and similar had been revised in detail.
Point 8: No explanation of some abbreviations and designations, e.g. NASA and DLR on page 1, or RANS on page 4. Please review the article in this regard.
Response 8: The mistakes above had been revised in detail.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
