Experimental and Numerical Analysis of the Clearance Effects between Blades and Hub in a Water Wheel Used for Power Generation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

After reading this paper, it is my conclusion that it is not ready for publication. Although the research in this paper seems to be interesting, the presentation is lacking and needs to be improved considerably before the paper can be considered for publication.

* Fig. 3 is not, as the caption states, a schematic view of the experiment. It's a photograph.

* Reference to figures and tables do not work. All I see is: Error! reference source not found. This has to be fixed.

* What numerical method is applied to solve the equations? The article only states that "Fluent" was used. I assume that means Ansys Fluent, though no direct reference is given (which also needs to be fixed). But that is a large code with many options. We need clarity as to exactly what the numerical setup is.

* The authors seem to ignore much of the work that has been done on simulating the flow in waterwheels. I miss references to the work by Tevata & Inprasit (2011) or Khan et al. (2015) or Bachan (2019), or Licari et al. (2019)  or Setyawan et al. (2020) on modelling waterwheels.

* All models assume the same rotational speed, but I find no explanation as to why this speed was chosen or why teh effect of varying the speed was not investigated. Please explain.

I recommend that the authors fix these issues and resubmit.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors carry out a combined experimental and numerical study of clearance effects between blades and hub in the power generation in a water Wheel. In general, the study provides interesting and innovative results and conclusions. However, there are some aspects that can be improved:

- It would be convenient to include a nomenclature section

- The edition of equations and the English can be improved

- In section 1. Introduction, lines 86 to 90 there are errors when describing the sections. Almost all are section 0

- In line 104-105 the authors say “The numerical model was simulated using the Fluent method”. This is incorrect

- In subsection 2.3 the use of the k-epsilon model is not sufficiently justified

- There are numerous errors of the type “Error! Reference source not found”. This seems to be due to the generation of the PDF file

- In line 180 the authors speak of “verification of grid Independence” but do not give any details. This needs to be explained

- In subsection 3.2. Verification and validation of results does not give any kind of detail nor does any comparative analysis. This needs to be improved

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Having read the new version of this paper, I believe it is now acceptable for publication. I would like to thank the authors for their effort in addressing my concerns.

Reviewer 2 Report

All changes accomplished out by the authors are appropriate