16th-IBCAST-2019_paper_40:

Design of Thrust Measurement System on Test

Beds of a Gas Turbine Engine Using Strain Gauges
Syed Asad Abbas (1), Ahmad Hassan (2), Mohtashim Mansoor (3)
Aerospace Department, College of Aeronautical Engineering,
National University of Science and Technology

General Comments:
1. Paper presents a new method for measurement of Thrust using strain gauges.
2. Manuscript includes some very basic level material at several places which needs to be reduced.
3. Punctuation needs to be improved throughout the manuscript.
4. Paper has some questionable points which have been described below.
5. No previous work or other methods of thrust measurement have been described.
Technical Review:
Page No. Line No. Comment
P1/C1 11-12 ‘Load on the Complete test bed structure or member of test bed structure’
needs Clarification.
P1/C1 16-19 Repetition of concepts, sentences in Abstract. Rearrange.
P1/C1 25-30 It’s not a hypothesis, ranges of these parameters are defined based on ranges of
acceptable value of thrust.
P1/C1 31-35 No reference of these incidents.
P1/C2 Very basic type of material needs to be replaced/ supplemented with research
work of previous authors.
P2/C2 11-12 Needs rephrasing. (Voltage changes involved are very small)
P3/C1 6 Needs rephrasing. (Cheaper solution-Low cost solution)
P3/C1 19-21 Needs rephrasing.
P3/C1 27 Start under Experiment heading needs improvement.
P3/C2 1-2 If the loading and deflection are as per diagram, then upper surface faces
compression while lower surface faces tension.
P4/C1 X and Y Labels on graph are incorrect on Figure 12.
P4/C2 Figure 13 is not clear. It seems that there are two Load Carrying members on 1
side.
P4/C2 6 Fluctuations are due to DEFICIENCES/FLAWS in the indigenous build.
P4/C2 23 Analysis needs to be described.
P5/C2 Free body diagram is required for clarification.
P5/C2 29-30 As per claim that strain produced is purely axial is questionable. For that ends
should be pin joints which would cause change in angle. If angle changed and
that changed angled is used, then at least two angles should have been
mentioned for with A/B case and for one without it.
P5/C2 3-5 This much detail is unnecessary.
P5/C1 26 Lab model is not discussed above.
P6/C1 What was Catia used for in this paper?
P6/C1 2-3 Needs Clarification.
P7/C1 What does ideal thrust mean? Ground or (during) flight thrust?
P7/C2 10 How can it be concluded that aircraft is fit to fly when acceptability of this
 method hasn’t been validated?
P7/C2 35-40 Repetition of Concepts, Needs Rephrasing.
Formatting
Page numbers are missing.
P1/C1 20 Spellings to be corrected.
P1/C1 37 Grammatical Mistake. Punctuation mark missing.
P1/C2 6-7 Formatting needs to be balanced. (Endings not justified)
P1/C2 Equations are not numbered.
P2 Symbols in Figure 2 and equation don’t match.
P2/C1 6-12 Formatting needs to be balanced. (Endings not justified)
P2/C2 12-14 Grammatical mistakes (there are, which costs)
P5/C1 12-14 Needs Rephrasing.
P5/C1 21-25 Needs Rephrasing.
P5/C1 15 Grammatical mistakes (comma before the word ‘thus’)
P5/C1 Spelling of heading ‘Data acquisition’ are incorrect.
P5/C1 29 Missing Punctuation mark.
P5/C2 Caption for image is missing.
P5/C2 15 Grammatical/spelling mistake (from instead of form).
P6/C1 11 Spelling Mistake (‘Into’ instead of ‘in to’).
P6/C2 24 Grammatical mistake. Punctuation mark required.
Conclusion:
Research Paper is acceptable subjecting to clarification of Axial Loading Concept. Overall
technical writing needs major grammatical and formatting improvement.