Wear Regularity of Shotcrete Conveying Bend Based on CFD-DEM Simulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.       The language of this paper is terrible. I strongly recommend the authors to have this paper for professional English proofreading.

2.       In figure 3, the distribution of particles are different at two particle size. Can you please elaborate it more. Your explanation does not make sense to me.

3.       In figure 6, the pressure of the pipe at different locations are different for six different priticle sizes. Can you explain it a little bit more?

4.       From line 290 to line 296, there are many redundant sentences. Please make sure to make it concise.

5.       In the pipe, how come it has wind? Where does this win come from?

6.       On the upper side of pipe curvature, it makes sense that the pressure increases. But why does the pressure increase not at the lower side of curvature?

7.       This paper does not provide any experimental measurements. That means the conclusion of this paper is not convincing enough. If the author could provide any experimental data to support its conclusion, it would be very helpful.

8.       As this paper does not provide enough reference. Please consider to cite the following papers:

 

Li, J., Zhou, F., Yang, D., Yu, B., & Li, Y. (2020). Effect of swirling flow on large coal particle pneumatic conveying. Powder Technology, 362, 745-758.

 

Yue, Y., Zhang, C., & Shen, Y. (2021). CFD-DEM model study of gas–solid flow in a spout fluidized bed with an umbrella-like baffle. Chemical Engineering Science, 230, 116234.

 

Tang, Qixiang, et al. "Finite element simulation of photoacoustic fiber optic sensors for surface corrosion detection on a steel rod." Nondestructive Characterization and Monitoring of Advanced Materials, Aerospace, Civil Infrastructure, and Transportation XII. Vol. 10599. SPIE, 2018.

 

Vega, Federico G., et al. "Stability and conductivity of proppant packs during flowback in unconventional reservoirs: A CFD–DEM simulation study." Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 201 (2021): 108381.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, point-by-point responses to the reviewers are attched.

 

Best regards,

Guoming

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the part of the introduction it is recommended to strengthen the paragraphs with references that support what is being expressed:

Paragraph in lines 34-44 put references

paragraph in lines 45-46 put references

paragraph in lines 51-52 put references

In section 4.1 Particle motion analysis figure 2 is not understood, they do not talk about figures 2a and 2b that these figures are contributing to the study, please improve their presentation.

Figures 6 and 8 could be put in a single graph? It seems to me that figure 8 contributes more and instead of putting figure 6 these data could be better presented in a table?

Improving the presentation of figure 9 is not understood.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, point-by-point responses to the reviewers are attached.

 

Best regards,

Guoming

Author Response File: Author Response.docx