A Study of Evaluation Method for Turbocharger Turbine Based on Joint Operation Curve

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Future studies in the chosen field are not very detailed. In the conclusions, only the last sentence states that these studies will continue. No studies are presented related to the reliability of the optimal solution studied, nor about the implementation costs.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

After checking the language, the article may be published in a journal.

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors can add recent literature works to the study in the introduction section and under references and credit peer researchers in the area of fuel consumption and traction index e.g.

Rosdi sm, R. Mamat, A. Azri, and K. Sudhakar, “Effects of Lean Combustion on Bioethanol-Gasoline Blends using Turbocharged Spark Ignition Engine”, Int. J. Automot. Mech. Eng., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 9140–9148, Oct. 2021.

J. J. Mamala, K. . Praznowski, S. Kołodziej, and G. Ligus, “The Use of Short-Term Compressed Air Supercharging in a Combustion Engine with Spark Ignition”, Int. J. Automot. Mech. Eng., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 8704–8713, Jun. 2021.

There is no clearly defined purpose for the research. 

Clearly articulate the parameters of the adopted model. Is the assumed model pressure at the exhaust of 100kPa correct for real reference parameters?

The research stand is very poorly described. What parameters are described. Is it possible to measure power with an accuracy of three decimal places? How is the power of the turbine measured?

The parameters presented in Table 3 require a comment. The same applies to table 4. Where is the accuracy of the parameters in table 5 from?

With reference to Figures 5, 6 for which engine parameters the efficiency of the turbo-charging system was simulated. What are the conditions for the flow, e.g. 0.08 kg / s.

What are the model parameters described in fig. 9. This requires a comment. Assumptions.

A very bold sentence in lines 380 to 383 with such small differences.

In this regard, please consider the conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Article significantly improved. The author could have described the research stand more clearly. This version is suitable for printing.