Study on Cascade Density of the Impeller Based on Response Surface Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript employs a sampling method to analyze the pump airfoil with various cascade densities, which adds credibility to the research. Additionally, the response surface analysis method is utilized to investigate the density range of the pump airfoil cascade, representing a significant breakthrough as it effectively considers parameters such as head, efficiency, and critical cavitation number. The manuscript is skillfully composed, accompanied by satisfactory figures that align well with the journal's scope.

After addressing the following concerns, please feel free to proceed with further inquiries:

 (1) In this paper, the impeller sampling method employed is the D-optimal quadratic sampling method, which is a relatively novel approach. Could you kindly provide an introduction to this method?

 (2) It is crucial to pay attention to the spelling of words, particularly when it comes to professional nouns. In lines 103 and 104, "shround" should be modified to "shroud," and similar revisions should be made elsewhere.

 (3) In Figure 11 and 15, the unit "atm" is not commonly used; "Pa" is the appropriate unit. Please correct the units in these figures accordingly.

 (4) The cavitation diagram of the impeller in Figure 17 appears scattered, suggesting the need for layout adjustments. Similarly, other figures may also require modifications to address the same issue.

 (5) It would be best to divide Figure 10 into six smaller figures or use other means to make it more specific and clearer.

 (6) Figure 5 should be optimised, there is too much text in the small box on the right.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your patient and meticulous review of the manuscript. Through your review, we are aware of the shortcomings of the manuscript and the negligence in our writing. It is your careful review that makes my work more perfect. Your professional advice and patient guidance let me have a deeper understanding of my writing. Your support not only helped me improve this article, but also made me more confident about my academic path. Thank you again for your valuable time to review my paper. Please refer to the word text for details of the revised reply. Thank you again for your kind review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the article is suitable for publication in the journal but needs minor revision. Detailed comments below.

1. In Figure 4a,b, the grid is not clearly visible.

2 The captions for Figures 6 and 7 need to be corrected. The word "diagram" is not very appropriate here. Additional comment on Figure 7 regarding the Boundary conditions "Stage interface" and "Static interface" is needed.

3. Line 160: "...the radius of cavitation bubbles (generally 1×10⁶ m)". May be 1×10^-6 m?

4. In Figure 24, the number of lines in the legend is larger than is represented in the figure field. For example, there is no dashed red line. 

5. There are typos in the text, such as missing spaces between words and parentheses or numbers.

6. The article says nothing about the geometry of the guide vane chamber and the inlet/outlet section, which will certainly affect the results obtained. Most likely, when changing the cascade density, the geometry of the flow part should be changed accordingly in order to obtain optimal characteristics. 

Author Response

Thank you very much, dear reviewer. We can feel your friendly attitude towards this manuscript. Your patient review made me aware of the problems with the manuscript. It is your kindness and careful review that make our work more perfect. Your professional advice and patient guidance have given me a deeper understanding of my own writing. Your support has not only helped me improve the quality of this article, but also made me more confident in my academic path. Thank you again for your generous help. I really appreciate it. Please refer to the word text for details of the revised reply. Thank you again for your kind review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf