Numerical Analysis of the Effects of Different Rotor Tip Gaps in a Radial Turbine Operating at High Pressure Ratios Reaching Choked Flow
, Andrés Tiseira 1, Roberto Navarro 1, Lukas Benjamin Inhestern 2 and Juan David EchavarrÃa 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper attempts to analyse turbine efficiency at different internal gap sizes. A lot of simulations were performed but, in my opinion, no solution to the scientific problem was presented. The paper is more like a report. The paper completely lacks experimental validation. The layout of the paper sometimes seems chaotic. The authors describe the results shown in the figures. These figures are located several pages away. This definitely makes it difficult to read. A serious complaint is that the authors limit themselves to discussing the obtained simulation results, i.e. they give the percentage differences of the analysed quantities within the range of variation of the selected parameters. The authors do not explain the reasons for the facts described. Hence, my impression is that this is more of a report than a scientific paper. See attached manuscript for detailed comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper numerically studied the tip leakage flow behavior in radial turbines at high pressure ratios reaching choked flow. The context is very informative and interesting. There are some comments presented as follows,
1. The tip leakage flow may induce significant instability of the turbine, this part can be further introduced and analyzed. (DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112786)
2. Some studies have shown that the same clearance has different influence mechanisms and effects on different working conditions (DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2022.124532, DOI: 10.1115/1.4056119). Can this paper give some more such analyses
3. There are too many summaries in the conclusion, and the core and important conclusions should be retained
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors, the article is much better after correction, even not take in account that all recommendation was used.
