Transfer Learning-Based Fault Diagnosis Method for Marine Turbochargers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research describes the simulation of a multi-body dynamics model of a marine turbocharger and its analysis.

The article is well reasoned and has merit; The topic is original and relevant, the method and results presented are interesting, and the presentation follows logical steps.

The results follow the methods described. To my knowledge, there are not many similar studies in the world.

The methodology seems fine, but some fine-tuning should be done to bring the model to a higher level of accuracy.

The conclusions are in order and include all the necessary details. The most important remark is the English language, the article is sometimes a bit difficult to understand.

There are other materials on this topic, but not many (e.g.: 10.3390/machines11020311, 10.1061/(ASCE)EY.1943-7897.0000673, etc.), each article has a different analysis and approach.

 

 

1. Although the article is fully intelligible, linguistic improvements need to be made, especially in the adjectives (the and a).

2. Please make sure that the referencing is consistent. In line 22 you have 2,3 without spaces, in line 41 in the reference you have spaces.

3. A period in the text must be followed by a spacer (lines 32, 39, 41, etc.).

4.  Line 89 contains the following sentence: Fig. 1 is a schematic diagram of the test system, in which T, P and ω represent temperature, pressure and speed sensors. Please note that there is no ω in the figure.

5. Table 2 should be corrected grammatically.

6. Figure 4 was quite difficult to understand. It would be good to redraw the figure or explain it more precisely (if possible).

7. Please format the text in lines 326-335 as a paragraph.

8. I think there should be more references, especially from other MDPI journals.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The typesetting of formulas is awful.  Formulas are too complex to be understood clearly as is.  Indeces are too small. It seems to me, all formulas must be re-typed using modern MS Word tools, or the whole text must be converted to LaTeX.

2. Figures 2 and 3 contain text labels with too small characters.

3. Table 1 does not have meaningful title and needs additional description of its content, including meaning of columns.

4. It is not clear where parameters from Table 2 can be used from this article point of view?

5. The Figure 9 needs additional description in the text.

6. It seems, lines 323-335 contain algorithm, but it is not subdivided onto steps and conditional solutions. It is impossible to reproduce it.

7. Line 328. The meaning of "learning machine" is not clear.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1) The English should be notably improved throughout the paper text. The Author has used many too long sentences, which are only partially understandable or not understandable at all – too long sentences should be divided in two or more of them. Moreover, there are many spelling and grammatical issues related to the English – all of them should be corrected and improved throughout the paper text.

2) The Abstract is too general and mainly descriptive. In the Abstract the Author should add more the most important results obtained in this research (its exact values), which will highlight the novelty of the presented paper already in the Abstract. At the moment, from the Abstract is not clear what exact novelty this paper brings in this research field.

3) The title of Subsection 2.1 is Subsection?

4) Table 1 title is completely wrong – it should be corrected. Throughout the paper can be found many obvious and typing mistakes. It seems that the paper is prepared in a hurry, without proper check and corrections before its upload. All of such obvious and typing mistakes should be corrected because they can be really annoying during the paper reading.

Moreover, Table 1 is not clear (at least to me). I believe that Table 1 should be much better and more detail explained.

5) In Section 2.1 the Author has described an experimental setup. However, there is no any mention about measuring equipment specifications, measurement dynamics and data collecting system as well as measurement accuracy and precision. At least the most important data related to the measurement procedure and measuring equipment should be added and properly described in this Subsection.

6) Figure 2 – much better and more detailed description of the turbocharger model is required.

7) In the paper should be added a Nomenclature inside which will be, in one place, listed and explained all abbreviations, symbols and markings used throughout the paper text, in the equations, figures and tables. At the moment, many abbreviations, symbols and markings are not explained at all (for example, the exact meaning of the abbreviations EHD and PSD cannot be found anywhere in the paper). There are lot more examples of such undefined variables – all of them should be properly presented and explained.

8) Table 2 – values and measuring units should be properly presented (they are not properly presented at the moment).

9) Section 2.2.3. Finite element classification and modal reduction of turbocharger substructure – it should be performed and added in the paper an impact of mesh density on the obtained calculation results, selection of the optimal mesh should be explained, definition and selection of proper simulation step should be presented and explained.

10) Section 2.3. Model Validation – the figures presented in this Section (Figure 4, 5 and 6) should be enlarged and their quality should be improved because at the moment clear differences between calculated and measured values cannot be seen. If required, the details which will clearly highlight the differences between simulation and measurement values should be presented in each mentioned figure.

The Author has explained the exact differences between simulated and measured values in the paper text. However, the exact reasons which lead to the mentioned differences were not explained. Also, it is missing an explanation which differences between measured and simulated values can be considered as acceptable. These elements should be clearly highlighted in the paper.

11) The Author should avoid presenting the Tables on two pages. There is no reason why Table 3 and 4 are presented on two pages – each of them should be completely presented in one page, in such way both of them will be much clearer.

12) Conclusion – Conclusion should be rewritten and properly organized. As the Abstract, the Conclusion section should also be improved with more the most important obtained results (its exact values). Also, the Conclusion seems to be too descriptive and general, without many details obtained in the presented analysis. At the end of the Conclusion section should be presented the guidelines for further research related to the observed theme.

13) The List of the References – the dominant amount of the references is older than 5 or 10 years. The Author should involve in this list (along with proper connection with a paper text) much more recent literature from this research field.

 

Final remarks: This is an interesting paper with clear and obvious scientific novelty, but it should be notably improved (according to the comments above) to be considered for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1) Lines 468-469 are about conflict of interest, but I am not sure this clause is relevant to the article with the only author.

2) Line 473 has a wrong indentation of the second column

3) Fig.9 contains a truncated picture.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The Author has performed all required corrections. The paper can be published in a presented (revised) form. My congratulations to the Author.

Author Response

Dear Professor：

Thank you so much for your precious time and constructive advice on our paper. It is absolutely helpful for improving this paper.

Best regards

Sincerely yours

Fei Dong