Optimization Design of a 2.5 Stage Highly Loaded Axial Compressor with a Bezier Surface Modeling Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find the pdf file attached. There are 58 comments that need to be addressed. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

- The paper used a method to optimize the geometry of the stator and rotor blades of a small axial compressor,

 

- The method used 3D CFD along with bezier surface method and a genetic algorithm to update the surface geometry of the blades and find the optimum grid that maximizes the compressor adiabatic efficiency and the surge imagine,

 

 CFD and optimization methods have been long used for the design and analysis of the aerodynamic fields such as the axial compressors. So, the method by itself does not have great novelty and contribution, unless you can show this specific method has not used in this research scope, which I have found similar papers available. However, applying the method and using it for a specific case study is still valuable. The paper's structure is good and the results and discussions bring important information. The presentation should be improved if selected for publications. Here are some points that can help the quality of your paper

 

1- The abstract is not good. There is only one (the first) sentence on the necessity and importance of the method, and then suddenly you have jumped into the method and results. More information on why you are doing this research and why it is important can clear the contribution of your research.

 

2- I believe that the literature review is sufficient, but at the end of it - the last paragraph before section 2 - the research gap is not stated clearly. you have said "design and optimization ... is still a problem"; This can not be your research motivation. Or in the last 3 lines, you mentioned: "better results can be..." but you never discussed "Better Results", and "existing computing resources" compared to other methods. You should clearly state if the method is your paper's contribution or improving the design and performance is.

 

3- Generally, the figures in the paper need attention. Most of them lack providing the needed information. Please explain the details of figures and charts via using labels or in the caption. I will point to specific cases in the following. 

 

4- Can you add the power to table 1?

 

5- In Figure 2, the workflow is not clear. Please explain one set of the design processes and its iteration, where it starts, and how it is updated.

 

6- At the end of page 5 and the first 4 lines of page 6, what are these errors? When you say measurement error it is implied that you are talking about the accuracy of the measurement devices. Is this the case? Or if you mean the error between the modeling and the measurement, the experiments are the data that the models should be validated with. So these errors should be related to modeling, not the measurements. Please clarify and revise if needed.  

 

7- Figure 4: Please add axis titles and units for this chart and all other figures as well. 

 8- Section 4.1 is unclear. Please add more explanation on how the bezier surface method work.

 

9- Figure 5 is very vague. Is it 2-D or 3-D? Please use a better schematic with more labels or coordinate to clarify the location of each element in the picture.

 

10- Page 7, last line: What is the change amount? Change in what quantity?

 

11- Page 8, line 3: What is the Xi direction? Please show it in the figures.

 

12- Page 9, second paragraph: Was the flow field calculation the 3D CFD as you did for your original calculations?

 

13- Figure 7: The flow chart is very useful, but it could have more details, for example for the bezier surface, you can add sub-steps to show how do you change the grids (how different, what directions, where...)

 

14- At the end of the optimization process you should provide information on the computational time and the total number of the iteration of CPU-time. In the introduction, you mentioned that computational efficiency is one of the important features, but there is no data on the calculation efficiency compared to previous conventional methods. 

 

15- Section 4.2: The fitness value or the cost function is not very clear. When do you stop the iterations?

 

16- Figure 9, again the contours need better/detailed explanations. A reader should simply find out what he/she is looking at when referring to the figures. In this picture, it is nor clear what color indicates, what are the axes, and what are the labels.

 

17- Figures 9 and 10, the right pictures, you should explain what colors are not just by 3 lets in the legend. Please explain how the colors refer to change in geometry. 

 

18- Figure 11, units, and titles.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed each of the 58 comments from the previous round of revisions. The manuscript has been improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the modifications that you applied to the revised version of your paper. It is now much better in quality, and easier to read and understand. I have no more comments.