Influence of the Slot Fillet and Vane Root Fillet on the Turbine Vane Endwall Cooling Performance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a theoretical analysis aiming to describe the effects of the slot fillet and the vane root fillet on the aerothermal performance of the turbine vane endwall. For this purpose, a vane profile geometry was adopted from the literature where experimental data were also available. Flow field was then simulated via different turbulence models and the results were validated using measured data.
Using the validated model, three different cases of slot fillets and vane fillets where next examined and the effect of their geometry on cooling was investigated in detail.
The discussion and explanations provided by the authors about the findings are quite analytical and sufficient, stand in the appropriate level and do not extend into useless details. Quality of presentation is quite good and the reader of the paper obtains easily and quickly an overview of the findings of the investigation performed. The subject of this investigation is very important and offers several fundamental conclusions concerning the effect of critical geometry details such as vane and slot fillet radius on cooling performance of gas turbine.
Therefore the paper is suggested for publication after a minor revision to perform a minor improvement in the use of English language.
Minor editing of English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The research concerns a well-known topic and it is difficult to find elements of novelty. Text is effective, but not clear and well organized. The abstract is correct, contains a summary, key findings, but need revision. However, the Methodology is well described. It is possible to reproduce the tests carried out on the basis of the article. The conclusions are questionable, may need to be changed after more accurate data analysis. Few detailed comments have been presented described as follows:
+ The introduction section intended to show (highlight) parts of the problem that are not solved by other scientists. - The outcome of the review is the identification of a “gap” of research that is not occupied by other scientists in this problem.
+ Although the authors present an approach in which the problem can be solved theoretically and discussed graphically, the focus should be on how the approach is better than the existing one.
+ The authors should think over the real significance of their results and try to rewrite this section to improve understanding of the conclusions
+ I recommend that the authors discuss the results in depth for the clarity of the idea to the readers and to have a real impact of the present research.
- How are the definitions of the equations that describe the flow? Any references?
- What is the methodology applied in the computational model, mesh independence, speeds, flows, calculations?. A diagram of the procedure used.
Revise the English grammar and soundness.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors refer to the research results presented in [18] in five places.
Is this new research or a continuation of [18]?
Chapter 2.1.
authors notes: “The geometric parameters of the model match up with those published in the literature [18]”. Geometric parameters are very important data on which the calculation result depends. The geometric model must be given in the article (without reference to other articles).
Fig. 1. What and how much is “d”
What and how much is "L"
Table 1: Provide drawing with dimension mentioned in table 1.
Provide drawing with dimensional shape of blade. Without such info is not possible to compare results and academic discussion.
Fig. 2. This drawing does not show the shape and location of the cooling jet
What program was used to perform the calculations. Is it the authors own program?
Fig. 6. By what method was the averaging carried out?
Figs 11 and 12 and 18 and 19 are illegible
references:
items 2, 3, 4, 15 are 25 to 35 years old!
item 1 is 12 years old.
items 9, 11, 17, 18 are auto-citations.
Apart from the above-mentioned, there are only items by Chinese authors.
Is the whole world really silent on this subject?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Before to acept the manuscript, the authors need solve the following issues:
+ I recommend to include a list of the symbols and abbreviations used.
+ The abstract should answer the questions: What problem did you study and why is it important? What methods did you use? What were your main results? And what did you conclude from your results? Please make your abstract with specific and quantitative results to further enrich the content of the article. Please indicate each of these questions in the abstract separately when you are replying to this comment.
+ Did you assume the compressible fluid in your Navier-Stokes equation? If yes, please explain what is the reason? if not, please modify all the equations based on the assumptions made to solve these equations.
+ Please explain what turbulent model you used to solve these equations, and why did you chose t this model.
+ In mesh independence study, the changes of one or two parameters with time (if the problem is transient) is evaluated at different mesh density (coarse to fine), when the result does not change with the number of elements, the results are assumed to be independent from the mesh density. However, the authors are evaluating the fluctuation in the response (temperature), which may not be true. Please explain and correct accordingly. Also, Can the authors provide a graph.
+ The authors should validate their results with another study. How one can trust on these data? Please check.
+ What time step did the authors chose in their simulations?
+ The authors mention "The film hole coolant has great streamwise coverage, getting a great cooling performance on the pressure side of the endwall." How the performance is evaluated, please indicate number, percentages. And solve issues like this one altrought the article!
minor
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Chapter 2.1
For me is still not to understand what is “D diameter”.
Provide drawing with dimensional shape of blade. It is any from NACA family? Or own shape? Without such info is not possible to compare results and academic discussion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
