Study on Solid-Liquid Two-Phase Flow and Wear Characteristics in Multistage Centrifugal Pumps Based on the Euler-Lagrange Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study systematically investigates the solid-liquid two-phase flow characteristics and wear patterns in multistage centrifugal pumps based on the Euler-Lagrange method. The authors established a comprehensive analytical framework through collaborative validation using numerical simulations and experimental testing, demonstrating rigorous research methodology. It is recommended that the manuscript be accepted after revisions based on the following comments.

 

1. Apart from the Eulerian-Lagrangian method and Finnie erosion model employed in this study, are there other viable numerical simulation approaches available? What is the rationale for selecting the current methodology?
2. In Section 3.1, particle-particle collisions are neglected. However, under high particle concentration conditions, can the Eulerian-Lagrangian model maintain simulation accuracy?
3. What is the physical significance of the characteristic fluid length defined in Equation (13) of Section 3.5? How can it be applied to analyze different flow-passing components in multistage centrifugal pumps?
4. Are the discrepancies between numerical simulations and experimental results in Section 3.9 within acceptable limits? What are the underlying causes of these differences? Relevant justification or references should be provided.
5. In the manuscript about the analysis of the Stokes number, the author believe that the inertial force is the main factor affecting the motion of particles in the flow field, and it is suggested to add relevant references to support this analysis.
6. The authors are recommended to systematically investigate the influence mechanisms of particle diameter and volume fraction on solid-liquid two-phase flow characteristics and wear patterns in multistage centrifugal pumps in future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

Interesting work in a field of research still open despite the numerous studies present in the literature. This work is carried out with a good methodology, despite this there are any inaccuracies that, in my opinion, should be revised.

Specific comments

1. Bibliographic references for some equations generally known are missing (eq. 4, 5, 6, 7) Please check.
2. Lines 133-134: How were the pressure drops along the pipeline estimated? The authors could add a comment about this.
3. Many works in the literature on this topic have not been cited. Please review the literature further.
4. The choice of the turbulence model should be justified. The authors could refer to the flow regime or other similar application cases in which the same model has been used in the literature.
5. About Fig.3 It would be helpful to zoom in on highly refined areas of the mesh, including critical areas like the trailing edge or leading edge.
6. Still regarding the mesh, there are some important details that, in my opinion, should be added. The authors should specify the number of grid points used within the boundary layer and the wall treatment used. The height of the first grid point is also important and correlates with the y+ that the authors mentioned in the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The validation of the simulation can be mentioned in the abstract.
2. The literature review could benefit from more comparative critique, such as identifying the specific gaps or contradictions in past work.
3. In section 3.1, some physical assumptions (e.g., neglecting particle-particle interaction, particle size uniformity) should be discussed explicitly as limitations.
4. Please justify the choice of the Tabakoff model over others, was it validated in similar flow conditions?
5. Please provide details on the total computational cost (time, hardware) for transparency.
6. Add quantitative comparisons (e.g., pressure drops, velocity profiles) to support the visual analysis.
7. A table summarizing wear rate values for different components would be helpful in section 4.2.
8. Please relate the findings of sections 4.3 and 4.4 to the relevant previous works to improve the connection with the previous works.
9. Please include the quantitative findings in the conclusion, such as state the main numerical results and insights explicitly (e.g., percentage increase in wear, most affected component), also, include future work suggestions: e.g., validation with experiments, testing different wear models, exploring other pump geometries.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf