Development of a High-Rotational Submersible Pump for Water Supply
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I can recommend the publication of this manuscript after a minor revision.
1. Insert the sign * for co-author Ivan Pavlenko 1,*.
2. Write keywords in alphabetical order.
3. Line 61: Insert a reference for Table 1.
4. Line 61: Specify that “Berdiansk, Kharkiv, Livny” are cities.
5. Lines 63-64: Could you specify with clear values for: ...” pumping equipment increases significantly”..., ...” an increase in its price”.
6. Lines 66-69: Could you specify with clear values for: ...” a higher level of energy efficiency...”, ...” simultaneous reduction in cost..”, ...” a reduction in weight and dimensions.”
7. Line 96, figure 1: improve the scientific quality of this figure by inserting the corresponding “axes of symmetry for every component” according to the rules of technical drawing.
8. Line 102: specify “the operation modes”.
9. Lines 115,117, 143, 148: specify the version of the software used (Solid-Works, ANSYS CFX, ICEM CFD).
10. Lines 132-134: insert all parameters from equations: 1-3.
11. Line 148: specify all the parameters used in the simulation process.
12. Line 150: It is not clearly the legend of Fig. 3. Give more details about the calculation area! Also, the scale? What does mean this scale? This figure must be explained!
13. Line 176: Insert a reference for Table 2. Specify a mathematical formula for “Efficiency”.
14. Specify the method used for interpolation of curves (figs. 5, 7, 9, 11, 13).
15. Can you give more figures in this study?
16. Specify the limits of this study. State in more detail the respective advantages and disadvantages.
17. If possible, I recommend the following references:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107900; DOI: 10.5220/0012127300003546
This manuscript can be published after the mentioned revisions.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
I can recommend the publication of this manuscript after a minor revision.
- Insert the sign * for co-author Ivan Pavlenko 1,*.
Answer: Done. Also, the typo in surname “Liaposchenko” was fixed as “Liaposhchenko”.
All the corrections have been marked in green color.
- Write keywords in alphabetical order.
Answer: Done.
- Line 61: Insert a reference for Table 1.
Answer: Reference [13] has been added.
- Line 61: Specify that “Berdiansk, Kharkiv, Livny” are cities.
Answer: Done.
- Lines 63-64: Could you specify with clear values for: ...” pumping equipment increases significantly”..., ...” an increase in its price”.
Answer: These phrases are based on the dynamics of changes in the cost of electricity on the European market during 2022 according to Eurostat data: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/nrg_pc_204/default/table?lang=en
The corresponding starting phrase has been added.
- Lines 66-69: Could you specify with clear values for: ...” a higher level of energy efficiency...”, ...” simultaneous reduction in cost..”, ...” a reduction in weight and dimensions.”
By the words "higher level of energy efficiency" we mean the achievement of a higher energy efficiency of the pump than that of analogues existing on the pump equipment market.
By the words "simultaneous reduction in cost..", "a reduction in weight and dimensions" we mean a reduction in the production cost of the pump as a result of a reduction in its weight and overall dimensions.
Have been clarified.
- Line 96, figure 1: improve the scientific quality of this figure by inserting the corresponding “axes of symmetry for every component” according to the rules of technical drawing.
Answer: Done
- Line 102: specify “the operation modes”.
Answer: Operating modes are the operation of the pump with different values of the flow rate parameter Q, m3/h from 0 m3/h to Qmax, m3/h (from 0% QBEP, or 0QBEP, – flow rate, when the efficiency pump is maximum, to 180%QBEP or 1.8QBEP).
Has been added.
- Lines 115,117, 143, 148: specify the version of the software used (Solid-Works, ANSYS CFX, ICEM CFD).
Answer: In our research we used Solidworks 2018, Ansys CFX 13.0, ICEM CFD 13.0.
Have been added.
- Lines 132-134: insert all parameters from equations: 1-3.
Answer: Done.
- Line 148: specify all the parameters used in the simulation process.
Answer: Done.
- Line 150: It is not clearly the legend of Fig. 3. Give more details about the calculation area! Also, the scale? What does mean this scale? This figure must be explained!
Answer: The calculation area includes elements of the developed pump flowing part (Fig. 1). The design and principle of operation of the pump are described on lines 102 - 115. Figure 3 shows the schematic diagram of the pump flowing part that was researched. In the course of the research, the design of the pump's discharge device was modified. Accordingly, only this element was changed in Figures 4, 6, 8, 10, 12. We didn’t change impeller in the different models of the research.
- Line 176: Insert a reference for Table 2. Specify a mathematical formula for “Efficiency”.
Answer: In Table 2, the authors of this research obtained the characteristics of the basic model of the ECV 10-63-150 pump using the method of numerical research described in section 2.
- Specify the method used for interpolation of curves (figs. 5, 7, 9, 11, 13).
Answer: For interpolation of curves (figs. 5, 7, 9, 11, 13) we used the logarithmic method of superimposing an approximating curve using the quasilinear regression approach. The corresponding reference has also been added.
- Can you give more figures in this study?
Answer: 2 more figure have been added:
Figure 1. Construction and installation conditions of well pumps: 1 – pump part; 2 – electric motor; 3 – power cable; 4 – valve; 5 – plate; 6 – casing; 7 – protective net; 8 – drain plug; 9 – pump control and protection station; 10 – manometer; 11 – latch; 12 – storage capacity; 13 – filter
Figure 2. ECW 10-65-150 pump: 1 – electric motor, 2 – bearings, 3 – stage, 4 – impeller, 5 – guide vanes, 6 – coupling, 7 – shaft.
- Specify the limits of this study. State in more detail the respective advantages and disadvantages.
Answer: The main advantages of the research results are:
1) increase in efficiency of the developed pump by 4.87% compared to the existing analogue;
2) a 67.5% reduction in the weight and overall dimensions of the developed pump, which will lead to a significant reduction in the cost of the pump in comparison with an existing analogue, taking into account the answer to your question No. 5;
3) use of numerical research techniques, which made it possible to reduce the cost and prevent the need for manufacturing and full-scale testing of intermediate models of the developed pump (Models 01, 02, 03).
The limit of the study is the need to replace pump elements, which requires additional investment costs for the modernization of already installed pumps. Also, further studies will be aimed to prove the results of a numerical studies by carrying out a full-scale test at the Laboratory of Hydrodynamic Drives and Installations.
Have been added to the end of the Discussion.
- If possible, I recommend the following references:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107900; DOI: 10.5220/0012127300003546
Answer: Done. Links No. 12, 19.
This manuscript can be published after the mentioned revisions.
Answer: We are very grateful to the reviewer for the quality review. We are sure that you helped significantly improve our article!
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required
Answer: The English language has been improved more thoroughly.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In the paper, a significant increase of head of the submersible pump stage was achieved by increasing the rotation frequency and designing the pump for this rotation frequency. The results are meaningful and interesting. However, the present version needs to be further revised before it is published in the journal.
Some suggestions are given for revising the paper:
(1) The resolution of all figures needs to be improved for better presentation.
(2) It is suggested to add more studies to enrich the research background of the article. Some examples you can reference:
https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME210528065Z
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.07.028
(3) The content of the numerical simulation section is less and the authors should add the results of the internal flow calculation.
(4) Please add legends in the performance figures.
(5) It is recommended to supplement test results to verify the accuracy of numerical calculations.
Author Response
In the paper, a significant increase of head of the submersible pump stage was achieved by increasing the rotation frequency and designing the pump for this rotation frequency. The results are meaningful and interesting. However, the present version needs to be further revised before it is published in the journal.
Some suggestions are given for revising the paper:
- The resolution of all figures needs to be improved for better presentation.
Answer: We improved the resolution of all figures.
All the corrections have been marked in yellow color.
(2) It is suggested to add more studies to enrich the research background of the article. Some examples you can reference:
https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME210528065Z
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.07.028
Answer: Answer: Done. References [28] and [37].
(3) The content of the numerical simulation section is less and the authors should add the results of the internal flow calculation.
Answer: In the future, we plan to conduct a more in-depth study of the flow pattern in the flowing part of the developed pump stage model (model 04), and the integral characteristics of the pump based on it. It is also planned to manufacture and test the pump using the developed model of the pump stage (model 04).
This explanation has been added to the Discussion.
(4) Please add legends in the performance figures.
Answer: Done.
(5) It is recommended to supplement test results to verify the accuracy of numerical calculations.
Answer: Thank you very much for the recommendation. The test results are planned to be added at the next stage of the research, which will be reflected in the authors’ subsequent works. The explanation has been added to the Discussion.
We are very grateful to the reviewer for the quality review. We are sure that you helped significantly improve our article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I have read your manuscript with interest. I believe that the research you have performed is of importance and interest to the readers.
Nevertheless, I would like to suggest some improvements for the better readability of the research community:
Lines 17-18: "parameters. "In the paper, a significant increase of head from 15 m to 65 m of the submersible pump stage was achieved ..." - a significant breakthrough was done in the paper or in your research? I believe it was done in your research and presented in the paper.
Lines 22-23: "... energy efficiency was achieved from 74.6% to 79.4% (by 5%)." The question is from what level? The energy efficiency in itself means nothing. One has to compare from the agreed level.
It would be good that abbreviations would be explained at the first mentioning (e.g. line 60 - ECV).
Table 1 - in the legend "pump SP 45-54" is identified, however, nowhere in the text it is explained. Two values of "Casing pipe diameter" are presented. It would be beneficial clearly identify which ones are 260 mm, and which ones 205 mm.
Lines 93-94 - it could be a misunderstanding with a number of stages. I would recommend more clearly state that newly designed pumps are with 2-stages.
Fig./Figure - in the legend of the figure you are stating "Figure", while in the text - Fig. I would suggest to unify.
I would recommend expand (definitely more than one sentence) the description of the Tables (starting from Table 2) and Figures (starting from Figure 5 - what lines in different colours stand for). Also, how to interpret Figure 5, which is non-standard (in comparison to others). The size of all figures should be the same (Figure 13 different from the others).
Line 353 - I would recommend "pump to work" change to "pump to operate".
I suppose other tiny recommendations you will receive from the Editorial team of the journal issue.
Other questions related to your research:
Have you assessed the deviation level of your simulations? For that purpose, the sensitivity/uncertainty analysis has to be performed. With CFX codes it is not an easy task. If you have not performed - is it in your future plans?
Seems your research showed tremendous savings in material and energy performance. Did you consider to patent your results (by publishing them you will not be able to do so)?
I request major revision not because much should be improved, but to make sure it will be done.
Author Response
Dear Authors,
I have read your manuscript with interest. I believe that the research you have performed is of importance and interest to the readers.
Nevertheless, I would like to suggest some improvements for the better readability of the research community:
Lines 17-18: "parameters. "In the paper, a significant increase of head from 15 m to 65 m of the submersible pump stage was achieved ..." - a significant breakthrough was done in the paper or in your research? I believe it was done in your research and presented in the paper.
Answer: We have corrected the context of this sentence to reflect your edits.
All the corrections have been marked in blue color.
Lines 22-23: "... energy efficiency was achieved from 74.6% to 79.4% (by 5%)." The question is from what level? The energy efficiency in itself means nothing. One has to compare from the agreed level.
Answer: Of course, we corrected the text of this sentence according to your edits: “…from 74.6% (for the existing pump) to 79.4% (by 5%, for the developed pump)…”
It would be good that abbreviations would be explained at the first mentioning (e.g. line 60 - ECV).
Answer: We added the description according to your comments (lines 74-77).
Table 1 - in the legend "pump SP 45-54" is identified, however, nowhere in the text it is explained. Two values of "Casing pipe diameter" are presented. It would be beneficial clearly identify which ones are 260 mm, and which ones 205 mm.
Answer: We have added an edit taking into account your comments.
Lines 93-94 - it could be a misunderstanding with a number of stages. I would recommend more clearly state that newly designed pumps are with 2-stages.
Answer: We have added an edit taking into account your suggestions.
Fig./Figure - in the legend of the figure you are stating "Figure", while in the text - Fig. I would suggest to unify.
Fixed it.
Answer: Have been fixed.
I would recommend expand (definitely more than one sentence) the description of the Tables (starting from Table 2) and Figures (starting from Figure 5 - what lines in different colours stand for). Also, how to interpret Figure 5, which is non-standard (in comparison to others). The size of all figures should be the same (Figure 13 different from the others).
Answer: We guess, you meant Fig. 3, not Figure 5. The calculation area includes elements of the developed pump flowing part (Fig. 1). The design and principle of operation of the pump are described on lines 102 - 115. Figure 3 shows the schematic diagram of the pump flowing part that was researched. In the course of the research, the design of the pump's discharge device was modified. Accordingly, only this element was changed in Figures 4, 6, 8, 10, 12. We didn’t change impeller in the different models of the research.
We also added more information how to interpret Tables and Figures (starting from Table 2 and Figure 5 – Lines 197-206, 213-215).
Line 353 - I would recommend "pump to work" change to "pump to operate".
Answer: Done.
I suppose other tiny recommendations you will receive from the Editorial team of the journal issue.
Other questions related to your research:
Have you assessed the deviation level of your simulations? For that purpose, the sensitivity/uncertainty analysis has to be performed. With CFX codes it is not an easy task. If you have not performed - is it in your future plans?
Answer: We plan to evaluate the deviation level of our simulations in the following researchs on this topic. In addition, it is planned to manufacture the pump and provide a full-scale parametric test of the pump with a developed flowing part (model 04) during 2023-2024. The corresponding explanations have been added to the end of the Discussion.
Seems your research showed tremendous savings in material and energy performance. Did you consider to patent your results (by publishing them you will not be able to do so)?
Answer: We plan to submit documents for several author's certificates for technical documentation for this pump. We also plan to submit 2 utility model patents for pump components. The publication of this article does not prevent this. We sincerely thank the reviewer for taking care to protect the intellectual property rights of this development.
I request major revision not because much should be improved, but to make sure it will be done.
Answer: We are very grateful to the Reviewer for the quality review. We are sure that you helped to significantly improve our article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The author has made the requested changes and the paper can be accepted.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the updated version of your manuscript.
I might be considered an "old-fashioned" person, but I would recommend in the text in one line write the value (number) and dimension (measurement parameter). At least I was taught in that way.
I wish you every success in your research.
