Axial Compressor Mean-Line Analysis: Choking Modelling and Fully-Coupled Integration in Engine Performance Simulations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is able to explain the methodology in great detail with application to support the claims. Great work! However, the authors are requested to rephrase long sentences as the reviewer had to re-read many parts to get clarity. Comments and questions follow:
- Reference for COMDES and abbreviation for COMDES and OTAC needs to be provided.
2. In section 2, the authors are requested to elaborate on why they chose to assume same temperature increase across each compressor rotor? Is the value calculated in one blade row and applied to others? Sentence is ambiguous, authors are suggested to rephrase it.
3. In section 3.3, Constant reduced mass flow rate’ is ambiguous. The authors are requested to rephrase it.
4. How is compressor back pressure determined or prescribed in this MLC?
5. How is BETA choke exactly determined from table considering it is a range?
6. Have the authors faced any other circumstances where secant method has failed to converge for provided tolerance value apart from low speeds? Is it robust?
7. Though this paper is not about validation, did the authors calibrate MLC to tune parameters for NASA Stage-35 design?
8. In pg. 18 what does (55) mean?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1) The introduction needs to be more coincise. Some information is not essential.
2) The authors should emphasize the novel aspects of the work.
3) In section 2, I suggest adding a table with the correlations used for the 1D model.
4) In section 3.1, it may be useful to add a schematic chart of the indices positions.
5) There is no information on the two multistage NASA compressors. Please add the main geometrical/flow parameters in a table.
6) Why did you choose a constant equal to 0.001 in equation 6? Have you done a sensibility analysis?
7) Table 7: please review the format.
8) Figs: 2, 7, 8, 13, 14 15: some plots are cut off.
9) Figure 11: define better each component.
10) Figure 12: please provide an appropriate legend and the relative rpm value for each characteristic.
11) At page 17, the authors said: "it is approximately 45% faster compared to the MLC with..." Please give some details about the CPU/computer used.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Nothing else to suggest
