Vibration Parameters Identification of Rotating Blades Based on Blade Tip-Timing Sensor Waveforms
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is devoted to improve the tip timing method for determination of rotor blade vibration. A method is proposed to identify blade vibration characteristics from mapping of sensors static waveforms and blade tip-timing dynamic waveforms. The method if found to reduce the number of sensors and increase the identification accuracy. The paper is informative, however a revision is required before its publication.
- List of symbols is needed at the beginning.
- Formulas should read with the text and obey punctuation rules.
- The language needs to polished. There are quite many clumsy sentences, most often due to missing or wrong prepositions or words (eg. Line 10 in Abstract – probably a word missing after “arrival”, lines 35, 36 in Introduction – clumsy, the final section of Introduction – also clumsy, just to mention only a few).
- Capital letters are due in the names of companies and universities (page 2).
- Waveform identification in Figs. 7-9 should be better described.
.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Vibration Parameters Identification of Rotating Blades based on Blade Tip-Timing Sensor Waveforms" (ID:applsci-2368100). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. The main corrections in the manuscript and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed as follows. The corrections parts in the manuscript are marked in blue.
Reviewer 1
The paper is devoted to improve the tip timing method for determination of rotor blade vibration. A method is proposed to identify blade vibration characteristics from mapping of sensors static waveforms and blade tip-timing dynamic waveforms. The method if found to reduce the number of sensors and increase the identification accuracy. The paper is informative, however a revision is required before its publication.
Comment 1: List of symbols is needed at the beginning.
Response: The list of symbols is already provided at the beginning of the manuscript.
Comment 2: Formulas should read with the text and obey punctuation rules.
Response: Formulas has been read with the text and obey punctuation rules.
Comment 3: The language needs to polished. There are quite many clumsy sentences, most often due to missing or wrong prepositions or words (eg. Line 10 in Abstract – probably a word missing after “arrival”, lines 35, 36 in Introduction – clumsy, the final section of Introduction – also clumsy, just to mention only a few).
Response: The language of entire manuscript has been polished according to the reviewer's requirements.
Comment 4: Capital letters are due in the names of companies and universities (page 2).
Response: The names of companies and universities have been capitalized.
Comment 5: Waveform identification in Figs. 7-9 should be better described.
Response: The waveform identification in Figs. 7-9 has been better described.
Finally, we appreciate for Editors/Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Best regards,
Liang Zhang, Qidi Wang, Xin Li
Address: 169 Shiying Street, Guta District, Jinzhou City, Liaoning Province, China. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Automation. Liaoning University of Technology.
Phone: +8615941611803
E-mail address: [email protected]
May 4, 2023
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors proposed a blade vibration parameters identification method is based on the mapping matching between the static waveform of the sensor and the dynamic waveform of the blade tip timing.
The work look interesting, however the authors need to address the following comments:
1. The vibration equation of the blade is assumed of a single harmonic with a dc component, but then the authors introduced a linear term to the circumferential displacement of the first blade tip relative to the OPR sensor. I wonder about the correctness of adding such a linear term. A published reference verifying this step is required.
2. the authors need to discuss in the introduction section what novelty their work owns when considering nonlinear identification of a narrow cantilever blade undergoing free vibration. They should refer to: "Identification of nonlinear model for rotary high aspect ratio flexible blade using free vibration response" Alexandria Engineering Journal
3. I suggest the authors follow the same error definition, either relative error or absolute. it is not wise to switch from this to that in the same presentation of results
4. The presentation of the work is really poor in terms of language. It must be improved.
The language of the manuscript is poor, it must be improved.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Vibration Parameters Identification of Rotating Blades based on Blade Tip-Timing Sensor Waveforms" (ID:applsci-2368100). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. The main corrections in the manuscript and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed as follows. The corrections parts in the manuscript are marked in blue.
Reviewer 2
The authors proposed a blade vibration parameters identification method is based on the mapping matching between the static waveform of the sensor and the dynamic waveform of the blade tip timing. The work look interesting, however the authors need to address the following comments:
Comment 1: The vibration equation of the blade is assumed of a single harmonic with a dc component, but then the authors introduced a linear term to the circumferential displacement of the first blade tip relative to the OPR sensor. I wonder about the correctness of adding such a linear term. A published reference verifying this step is required.
Response: Equation (5) is correct. There is some ambiguity in the description of equation (5) in the manuscript and it has been modified. Due to the angle between the first tip-timing sensor and the OPR sensor, the linear term represents the rigid body circumferential displacement of the blade rotation.
Comment 2: the authors need to discuss in the introduction section what novelty their work owns when considering nonlinear identification of a narrow cantilever blade undergoing free vibration. They should refer to: "Identification of nonlinear model for rotary high aspect ratio flexible blade using free vibration response" Alexandria Engineering Journal
Response: The author has already cited the reference "Identification of nonlinear model for rotary high aspect ratio flexible blade using free vibration response" in the introduction.
Comment 3: I suggest the authors follow the same error definition, either relative error or absolute. it is not wise to switch from this to that in the same presentation of results
Response: The author has followed the same error definition according to the reviewer's requirements.
Comment 4: The presentation of the work is really poor in terms of language. It must be improved.
Response: The language of entire manuscript has been polished according to the reviewer's requirements.
Finally, we appreciate for Editors/Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Best regards,
Liang Zhang, Qidi Wang, Xin Li
Address: 169 Shiying Street, Guta District, Jinzhou City, Liaoning Province, China. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Automation. Liaoning University of Technology.
Phone: +8615941611803
E-mail address: [email protected]
May 4, 2023
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors presented an alternative approach to identify rotating blade vibration. They demonstrated that their method is capable in identifying blade vibration characteristics more accurately compared to classical approach, which was known to be under-sampling.
Overall, the presented approach is interesting. However, I would suggest that the authors improve the manuscript based on the comments below before I can recommend the manuscript be considered for publication with the journal.
Comment #1:
How many blades are used in the experiment? Figure 1 seems to show only 1 blade.
Comment #2:
Figure 1 shows the static calibration system adopted in the present study. However, there is a lack of explanation on the cases studied to validate the proposed approach. For example, how are the cases in Figure 4 and 5 obtained. Also, when it comes to multiple sensor application, how is the measurement setup? Suggest including figures/diagrams to better explain the measurements.
Comment #3:
Explain why a static calibration of sensor waveform is adopted. Why not dynamic calibration?
Comment #4:
How many times did the authors repeat the measurements? If possible, include error bars whenever possible in the results.
Comment #5:
At present, the proposed method indicates promise in identifying the vibration properties of the blades. However, the validation is conducted under controlled conditions. Please elaborate on how the method behaves under actual blade operating conditions.
Comment #6:
Please compare the proposed method with other available methods in literature (those introduced to improve the classical method) to better highlight the strength of the present approach.
There are trivial language errors. The language can be improved and the authors are suggested to carefully proof read the manuscript before resubmission.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Vibration Parameters Identification of Rotating Blades based on Blade Tip-Timing Sensor Waveforms" (ID:applsci-2368100). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. The main corrections in the manuscript and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed as follows. The corrections parts in the manuscript are marked in blue.
Reviewer 3
The authors presented an alternative approach to identify rotating blade vibration. They demonstrated that their method is capable in identifying blade vibration characteristics more accurately compared to classical approach, which was known to be under-sampling.
Overall, the presented approach is interesting. However, I would suggest that the authors improve the manuscript based on the comments below before I can recommend the manuscript be considered for publication with the journal.
Comment 1:How many blades are used in the experiment? Figure 1 seems to show only 1 blade.
Response: In the experiment, eight blades can be installed on the disk, and this manuscript takes one blade as an example for research.
Comment 2:Figure 1 shows the static calibration system adopted in the present study. However, there is a lack of explanation on the cases studied to validate the proposed approach. For example, how are the cases in Figure 4 and 5 obtained. Also, when it comes to multiple sensor application, how is the measurement setup? Suggest including figures/diagrams to better explain the measurements.
Response: For the measurement and explanation of static calibration of blade tip-timing waveform, please refer to the author's published manuscript "Waveform prediction of blade tip timing sensor based on Kriging model and static calibration data".
Comment 3:Explain why a static calibration of sensor waveform is adopted. Why not dynamic calibration?
Response: The static calibration waveform of the sensor is used as the template waveform for identification, while the reason for not using the dynamic calibration waveform is due to factors such as uneven rotational speed and blade vibration, which introduce certain errors into the template waveform.
Comment 4:How many times did the authors repeat the measurements? If possible, include error bars whenever possible in the results.
Response: For the measurement and error analysis of static calibration of blade tip-timing waveform, please refer to the author's published manuscript "Waveform prediction of blade tip timing sensor based on Kriging model and static calibration data".
Comment 5:At present, the proposed method indicates promise in identifying the vibration properties of the blades. However, the validation is conducted under controlled conditions. Please elaborate on how the method behaves under actual blade operating conditions.
Response: The performance of the proposed method under actual blade operating conditions will be presented in subsequent research.
Comment 6:Please compare the proposed method with other available methods in literature (those introduced to improve the classical method) to better highlight the strength of the present approach.
Response: In section 4.5 of the manuscript, the proposed method has been compared with other available methods in literature (those introduced to improve the classical method).
Comments on the Quality of English Language：There are trivial language errors. The language can be improved and the authors are suggested to carefully proof read the manuscript before resubmission.
Response: The language of entire manuscript has been polished according to the reviewer's requirements.
Finally, we appreciate for Editors/Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Best regards,
Liang Zhang, Qidi Wang, Xin Li
Address: 169 Shiying Street, Guta District, Jinzhou City, Liaoning Province, China. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Automation. Liaoning University of Technology.
Phone: +8615941611803
E-mail address: [email protected]
May 4, 2023
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have in rashly revised their manuscript. They have to consider the following points:
1. Ref 28 is written irresponsibly. it is not according to the format and even wrong initials.
2. There are some typos and corrections must be done on the language. For instance: It is indicates that under...
Minor
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Vibration Parameters Identification of Rotating Blades based on Blade Tip-Timing Sensor Waveforms" (ID:applsci-2368100). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. The main corrections in the manuscript and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed as follows. The corrections parts in the manuscript are marked in blue.
Reviewer 2
Comment 1: Ref 28 is written irresponsibly. it is not according to the format and even wrong initials.
Response: I'm really sorry, Ref. [28] has been modified according to the standard format requirements.
Comment 2: There are some typos and corrections must be done on the language. For instance: It is indicates that under.
Response: Some typos and language errors have been corrected.
Finally, we appreciate for Editors/Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Best regards,
Liang Zhang, Qidi Wang, Xin Li
Address: 169 Shiying Street, Guta District, Jinzhou City, Liaoning Province, China. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Automation. Liaoning University of Technology.
Phone: +8615941611803
E-mail address: [email protected]
May 7, 2023
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have responded to the comments in an acceptable manner. However, it would still be better to make the explanations stand-alone from previous research rather than asking the readers to always refer back to previous studies. Also, even though it is planned for future work, i am still of the opinion that multiple blade analysis should be analysed in the present paper rather than splitting them in another paper because this gives the impression that the authors prefer quantity of publication rather than quality and completeness of the reported work.
The English has been improved.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Vibration Parameters Identification of Rotating Blades based on Blade Tip-Timing Sensor Waveforms" (ID:applsci-2368100). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. The main corrections in the manuscript and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed as follows. The corrections parts in the manuscript are marked in blue.
Reviewer 3
Comment 1: The authors have responded to the comments in an acceptable manner. However, it would still be better to make the explanations stand-alone from previous research rather than asking the readers to always refer back to previous studies. Also, even though it is planned for future work, i am still of the opinion that multiple blade analysis should be analysed in the present paper rather than splitting them in another paper because this gives the impression that the authors prefer quantity of publication rather than quality and completeness of the reported work.
Response: Thank you very much for the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewer. All authors of this manuscript will strictly follow your suggestions in future scientific research. The previous research is the foundation of this manuscript, which only involved static calibration and prediction of waveforms and did not involve blade vibration parameter identification based on blade tip-timing waveforms. The main research content of this manuscript is blade vibration parameter identification based on blade tip-timing waveforms. All authors of this manuscript place great emphasis on the quality and completeness of the manuscript, and will systematically summarize the application performance of multi blade analysis under practical working conditions in the next manuscript. Tthank you once again for the valuable suggestions from the reviewer.
Finally, we appreciate for Editors/Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Best regards,
Liang Zhang, Qidi Wang, Xin Li
Address: 169 Shiying Street, Guta District, Jinzhou City, Liaoning Province, China. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Automation. Liaoning University of Technology.
Phone: +8615941611803
E-mail address: [email protected]
May 7, 2023
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
