Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is well organized and the results presented clearly, but unfortunately, in its current form it does not have the scientific consistency to be published. There are no particularly innovative or original elements. Furthermore, fairly dated articles published in low impact journals are cited in the introduction, denoting a low profile of the state of the art.

The methodology is clear and well described, but the arguments and the conclusions are based on rather obvious elements and do not show particular insight.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 1:

Sir,

Please find attached the revised manuscript

Modeling the Valvetrain of the Car Engine to study the Effects of the Valve Rotation

Liviu Jelenschi et al

 

We would like to thank the reviewer for going through the manuscript and providing valuable suggestions for its improvement. Thanks to their constructive comments, we are able to present a clearer and better revised version than the original manuscript. All the comments have been carefully considered and the current manuscript is substantially improved. The amendments that have been made according to the reviewers’ suggestions are listed in our detailed response. With many thanks for your efforts and best regards,

Sicerely yours

Authors

 Authors' Amendments

First, we would like to thank the reviewer for carefully going through the manuscript and providing helpful suggestions for its improvement. Thanks to his constructive comments, we are able to present a clearer and better version of the manuscript. All the reviewer’s comments have been considered. According to the reviewer's suggestions, extensive changes have been made, highlighted by red color in the manuscript. The paper was rewritten taking the suggestions into account. The manuscript was extensively and significantly modified. The modified version is attached. We are thankful for the useful recommendations, which made the paper better and easier to understand. We corrected the language and improved the manuscript.

The corrections have been highlighted in red in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors built and presented a detailed model of an internal combustion engine valvetrain in order to evaluate the influence of the angular speed of the camshaft, of the coefficient of friction, of the ecentricity of the cam and of the rigidity of the spring on the valve rotation. The model is validated by the experiment and well described. 

There are some unclear deatils and sentances, but overal it is well written and clear. I would like to read few sentances more (in the introduction or conclusion section)  about the influence of rotational speed on engine performance (engine duration, advantages, disadvantages), not only the refference to other papers.
The lines from 55-58 just repeat the part from 52-55.
In the validation section, it should be explained (at least a theory) about the oscilations around 245 degree of crank angle in figures 12 and 13, that are measured, but not reproduced by the numerical model.
Line 35 -coding of the gas exchange process? - unclear
Lines 327-329 - Unclear, no verb. Explain with several sentances if needed
Line 354-355 -Unclear sentance, word anointing?

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2:

Sir,

Please find attached the revised manuscript

Modeling the Valvetrain of the Car Engine to study the Effects of the Valve Rotation

Liviu Jelenschi et al

We would like to thank the reviewers for going through the manuscript and providing valuable suggestions for its improvement. Thanks to their constructive comments, we are able to present a clearer and better revised version than the original manuscript. All the comments have been carefully considered and the current manuscript is substantially improved. The amendments that have been made according to the reviewers’ suggestions are listed in our detailed response. With many thanks for your efforts and best regards,

Sicerely yours

Authors

Authors' Amendments

First, we would like to thank the reviewer for carefully going through the manuscript and providing helpful suggestions for its improvement. Thanks to his constructive comments, we are able to present a clearer and better version of the manuscript. All the reviewer’s comments have been considered. According to the reviewer's suggestions, extensive changes have been made, highlighted by red color in the manuscript.

The paper was rewritten taking the suggestions into account. The manuscript was extensively and significantly modified. The modified version is attached. We are thankful for the useful recommendations, which made the paper better and easier to understand. We corrected the language and improved the manuscript.

The corrections have been highlighted in red in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In lines 52 - 55

In recent years, the use of advanced virtual simulation software of engine processes and the dynamic behavior of some engine parts has been emphasized because they require a much lower computation time and cost than a conventional test stand and experiment.

and lines 55 - 58

In recent years, emphasis has been placed on the use of advanced virtual simulation software of engine processes and the dynamic behavior of engine parts because they require a much shorter computational time and cost than a conventional test stand and experiments.

the text is almost the same.

line 100

Virtual Lab 10 program

Is it possible to refer to the site or info of used software? If 10 in the name is a version number, please write so. 

In the text, many places combine US and GB variants of English. Please use only one variant. There are plenty of spelling mistakes (tappete, symplified, ...). Professional proofreading is necessary.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 3:

Sir,

Please find attached the revised manuscript

Modeling the Valvetrain of the Car Engine to study the Effects of the Valve Rotation

Liviu Jelenschi et al

We would like to thank the reviewers for going through the manuscript and providing valuable suggestions for its improvement. Thanks to their constructive comments, we are able to present a clearer and better revised version than the original manuscript. All the comments have been carefully considered and the current manuscript is substantially improved. The amendments that have been made according to the reviewers’ suggestions are listed in our detailed response. With many thanks for your efforts and best regards,

Sicerely yours

Authors

 Authors' Amendments

First, we would like to thank the reviewer for carefully going through the manuscript and providing helpful suggestions for its improvement. Thanks to his constructive comments, we are able to present a clearer and better version of the manuscript. All the reviewer’s comments have been considered. According to the reviewer's suggestions, extensive changes have been made, highlighted by red color in the manuscript.

The paper was rewritten taking the suggestions into account. The manuscript was extensively and significantly modified. The modified version is attached. We are thankful for the useful recommendations, which made the paper better and easier to understand. We corrected the language and improved the manuscript.

The corrections are highlighted in red in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The effort made by the authors to improve the work is appreciable, but other changes are required for publication.

The model has been verified only with regard to the acceleration of the valve (Figures 12-14), but for the other results shown in the article there is no comparison with the experimental data. Instead, it would be opportune to include this comparison, if available, or to explain on what basis the reliability of the numerical result is based. Furthermore, in Figures 12-14, the differences between the experimentally measured valve acceleration versus the model results appear to be greater than the 5% indicated in the text. It would be worth explaining better.

A little hint, on page 3 at the end of line 243, I think the correct word is stem not steam.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 1:

Sir,

Please find attached the revised manuscript

Modeling the Valvetrain of the Car Engine to study the Effects of the Valve Rotation

Liviu Jelenschi et al

We would like to thank the reviewer for going through the manuscript and providing valuable suggestions for its improvement. Thanks to their constructive comments, we are able to present a clearer and better revised version than the original manuscript. All the comments have been carefully considered and the current manuscript is substantially improved. The amendments that have been made according to the reviewers’ suggestions are listed in our detailed response. With many thanks for your efforts and best regards,

Sicerely yours

Authors

 Authors' Amendments

First, we would like to thank the reviewer for carefully going through the manuscript and providing helpful suggestions for its improvement. Thanks to his constructive comments, we are able to present a clearer and better version of the manuscript. All the reviewer’s comments have been considered. According to the reviewer's suggestions, extensive changes have been made, highlighted by red color in the manuscript. The paper was rewritten taking the suggestions into account. The manuscript was extensively and significantly modified. The modified version is attached. We are thankful for the useful recommendations, which made the paper better and easier to understand. We corrected the language and improved the manuscript.