Fatigue Reliability Analysis of a Compressor Disk Based on Probability Cumulative Damage Criterion
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Evaluation of results should be significantly improved, which also holds for the conclusion that is rather short and does not really summarize the work performed. Authors should focus on how this method improves the prediction of service life, a comparison with simpler methods, what is the advantage of predicting the life more accurately - if one can use the component almost up to the complete damage, one can save the cost of unnecessary overhaul (i.e. simpler method overestimates damage) OR the component prematurely fails that could lead to in-flight-shutdown or the loss of airplane as well (when the simpler method underestimates damage) - and then point out how the new method performs better. Such a comparison that should take into account probabilities and costs of the above mentioned accidents/actions as well.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
We are very grateful for your comments and advices to our study, which are very useful in helping us perfect the manuscript, and we have made corresponding modification, marked in red, based on your comments. In particular, the poor conclusion and evaluation of results you mentioning, which is our negligence to make results of the research unclear and original idea difficult to be traced by readers, is very helpful for us.
According with your advices, we have amended the relevant parts in manuscript and separated our revisions according to several categories in order to achieve an integrated approach in my responses.
Revision 1. (lines 324-366) The chapter of Discussion has been added in the manuscript for evaluation of the results. In the chapter, in order to fully embody the difference of the subsection solution method proposed in this paper, the analysis results of the integral solution method and stress-strength interference model are also calculated to compare with the results of the new model. The results show that the new reliability analysis model developed in this study is basically reasonable to most of the load histories for compressor disk than stress-strength interference model, especially for the changeable and complex cruise mission. Moreover, further research also show that the proposed model can provide more secure result for compressor disk in long cruise mission.
Revision 2. (lines 367-396) To illustrate the original idea and originality of this manuscript, the Conclusion has been rewritten to highlight the results and innovations of our study.
Revision 3. The word "engine" has been replaced by "aero engine" with definitive adjective throughout the manuscript.
Revision 4. All positions of the references, including References 21-23, have been checked up and quoted in the manuscript.
Revision 5. All parentheses in the formulae have been revised as larger parentheses.
Revision 6. (lines 259-260) The unit of v in Table 1 has been explained in the text before the table to highlight the unusual h-1 unit, which is certainly important due to the hours long cruise mission, which is investigated in our study.
Revision 7. (lines 285) The failure sites of compressor disk, such as disk root, spoke hole and circumferential mortise, have been marked in Fig. 3.
Revision 8. As defined earlier, the material 1Cr11Ni2W2MoV has been replaced by the simpler reference "961 steel" throughout the manuscript.
Revision 9. Reference type indicated in bracket after each title has been deleted in the entire reference list.
Revision 10. English grammar in the manuscript has been carefully checked and revised by all authors collectively, as well as by a third-party institution, and the revision will be continuing until the manuscript can be published, if possible.
Revision 11: Some other revisions have been marked in manuscript.
If you have any question about this manuscript, please don’t hesitate to let us know. Finally, thanks again for all your help and looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Best regards
Sincerely yours
Reviewer 2 Report
Generally, the research methodology and the results of the research are presented id logical and readable for the reader but can you refer to the few, brief remarks?
Remarks:
- (lines 43-44) (....) In the second part of the sentence, the Authors wrote: (...) "the most of the researchers" (...), but there is no stated who did mention about, can you give the example where the reader can confirm your opinion?
- Between lines 57 and 58, it should be given a short introduction (2-3 sentences) to the chapter of the article.
- (line 157) - can you change the part of the sentence - "With reference to Reference" (...)? It sounds quite strange.
- (line 209) Figure 4. The description of the figure source has to be corrected.
- (lines 228-231) Sentences started for"According to (........) and one damaged site." should be moved after the Figure 6.
- Finally, the conclusion is a little too poor. It should be enriched/developed by the results of the research presented in the article by the Authors. They should be treated as proves of the conclusion statements.
- Finally, the positions of the references no. 23, 29, 30 and 31 are not quoted in the article.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your attention on our manuscript and we are also very grateful for your comments, which are very useful in helping us perfect the manuscript. In particular, the poor conclusion and un-quoted references you mentioning, which is our negligence to make results of the research unclear and original idea difficult to be traced by readers, is very helpful for us. The manuscript has been carefully revised according to your kind comments and the major revisions were marked in red. Some of the revisions, including the details of the revisions point-by-point (Revisions 1-7), were shown below.
Revision 1. (lines 62-63) In the second part of the sentence, some representative references (Refs. 17, 18 and 19) reported by Xie, Wang and Gao have been added to support the opinion.
Revision 2. A short introduction for the chapter of the article has been added between lines 90 and 97.
Revision 3. (line 227) The sentence "With reference to Reference, (........)" has been replaced by "Referring to the published literature and the related mechanics theory, ...".
Revision 4. (line 288) The description of the Figure 4 source has been corrected.
Revision 5. (lines 320-323) Sentences started for "According to (........) and one damaged site." has been moved after the Figure 6.
Revision 6. (lines 324-395) To illustrate the original idea and originality of this manuscript, the Discussion and Conclusion have been rewritten to highlight the results and innovations of our study.
Revision 7. All positions of the references, including References 23, 29, 30 and 31, have been checked up and quoted in the manuscript.
Revision 8. English grammar in the manuscript has been carefully checked and revised by all authors collectively, as well as by a third-party institution, and the revision will be continuing until the manuscript can be published, if possible.
Revision 9: Some other revisions have been marked in manuscript.
If you have any question about this manuscript, please don’t hesitate to let us know. Finally, thanks again for all your help and looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Best regards
Sincerely yours
Reviewer 3 Report
The entire manuscript needs to be rewritten by a native English language speaker as the language and grammar is too muddled to interpret the soundness of the research. Once this has been addressed, the manuscript can be reviewed properly
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your attention on our manuscript and we are also very grateful for your comment, which is very useful in helping us perfect the manuscript. English grammar in the manuscript has been carefully checked and revised by all authors collectively, as well as by a third-party institution, where most of the spelling and grammatical errors have been corrected, and some long and difficult sentences have been rewritten to simple sentences as well. We have also tried our best to choose word and sentence that is more appropriate in the manuscript after repeated deliberation. Moreover, the revision of the grammar and the improvement of the manuscript will be continuing until the manuscript can be published, if possible.
Finally, we appreciate very much for your time in helping us revise the manuscript and we would be glad to respond to any further questions and comments that you may have.
Best regards
Sincerely yours
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
- In the header of Table 1, "Frist" is written instead of "First"
The entire article has been thoroughly revised, the discussion section has been considerably improved.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your attention on our manuscript and we are also very grateful for your comment, which is very useful in helping us perfect the manuscript. The misspelled word "frist" has been replaced by "first" in the header of Table 1. In addition, the English revision will be continuing until the manuscript can be published, if possible.
Finally, we appreciate very much for your time in helping us revise the manuscript and we would be glad to respond to any further questions and comments that you may have.
Best regards
Sincerely yours
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you very much for your so positive response and so nice cooperation. I do not have any other remarks.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your attention on our manuscript and we are also very grateful for your comments, which are very useful in helping us perfect the manuscript. If you have any other question about this manuscript, please don’t hesitate to let us know. Finally, thanks again for all your help and looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Best regards
Sincerely yours
