Study on the Optimal Design Method of the Containment Ring for an Air Turbine Starter

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article presented for review is a comprehensive analysis aimed at optimising of Containment Ring for Air Turbine Starter. The analysis presented in the article on how to perform the optimisation can certainly be helpful when choosing how to optimise a multi-parameter system. In my opinion, the presented article can be published as presented.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper addresses an important problem for the aerospace engineering community, using state-of-the-art concepts and simulation/demonstration/testing capabilities. It is an impressive work with respect to proposed steps in this approach.

Some recommendations are:

Language should be improved with respect to the scientific content. There should be a more consistent usage of technical definitions and current understandings from the users involved in the engineering aerospace activities.

Also, authors refer a “genetic algorithm is used to optimize the structural parameters according to the optimization objectives”. However, this is not presented in requested details, that might be o significant importance for the overall evaluation of the benefit of proposed methodology.

Additionally, the optimization criteria is declared to be “The minimum mass M of U-type containment ring” and “four parameters of t, h, d and w are selected as optimization variables”. There is a need for better justification of this final decicision, since there might bu many additional parameters that influence the final goal of the analysis, that one might relate to the “safety of operation”. I would suggest more explanation on the decision and hypothesis.

Conclusions are very important and definitely show work value. However, I believe that better correlation between “optimized” solution(s), resulting weight and safety of operation must be emphasize, mainly including off-design operations.

Globally I do appreciate the extensive work and suggest minor changes before publication.

Language should be improved with respect to the scientific content. There should be a more consistent usage of technical definitions and current engineering usage.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

My opinion I've written in the attached file. I include some suggestion to improve your article in it. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx