Study on Noise Model of an Automotive Axial Fan Based on Aerodynamic Load Force

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper discusses the transient aerodynamic noise model of automotive axial fans. The following comments are made to make this manuscript better for readers. 

 

1. The title needs modification. The title summarizes the main idea or ideas of your study. A good title contains the fewest possible words that adequately describe the contents of your research work.
2. Authors' affiliations are not as per journal format.
3. The abstract lacks a description of the problem statement and methodology.
4. It would be better to mention some specific outcomes in terms of quantitative analysis, not just simple sentences in the abstract. This would help to know exactly the outcome obtained from your study.
5. The literature review is not satisfactorily summarized the current state-of-the-art research work.
6. There are several research works have been done on similar topics. Please summarize some relevant work in the introduction. Then identify the research gaps.
7. The addition of a brief discussion on some relevant research papers can be helpful to find research gaps. Thus, it would support the current problem statement of the work.
8. The novelty of the work has been not identified in the introduction.
9. As I read the last passage of the introduction section, I realized that the title seems not correct and exact as defined in the problem statement. It would be good if you modify this title to make clear sense of your work. Also, mention the objective of your work in detail.
10. You should start a NEW section of Results and discussion. Please make a separate section for Results and Discussion.
11. The results section and validation are completely missing.
12. The numerical work needs to be explained well using grids and images. Further, it should be explained on the basis of the parameters used.
13. It is expected that you should mention some more graphs. Because the results seem very limited.
14. The conclusion should be in detail. It would be better if you summarize all the outcomes in bullet formats in detail.
15. The conclusion is not exactly mentioned. Please re-write it.
16. English grammar and spelling mistakes should be checked.

Author Response

Dear Editor of  Applied Sciences, 

I have provided a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. English need to be improved or you may need to proofread your manuscript.
2. Please restructure your abstract. start with the problem, why you need to solve it and research gap, finally end with result.
3. Please include numerical result of your study in abstract.
4. Simulation was performed. Please justify why you need simulation if you have experimental data
5. Please justify why bending angles you select only 0, 04, 0 and 12. Any reference?
6. No grid independent test/Mesh sensitivity study was performed. This is crucial when you perform numerical simulation. Otherwise reader unable to replicate your mesh model.
7. Validation study is missing. This is very important to validate the level of your numerical simulation with your experiment model.

Author Response

Dear Editor of  Applied Sciences,  

 I have provided a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Recieved. Thanks.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.