Test and Numerical Simulation of Pressure Pulsation under the Forward and Reverse Working Conditions of a Horizontal Axial Flow Pump

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Equations numbers are written randomly, these must be aligned.

2. Which software has been used to perform numerical simulations?

3. Validation is missing with the existing studies.

4. Define all the parameters used.

5. Authors contribution is missing.

6. Some typos are reported.

7. Some paragraphs are not adjusted as per journal template.

8. Fig. 1 is not adjusted properly.

9. Literature review is very short. Some more references on pumping flows should be cited. Some suggested recently published works are here: https://doi.org/10.1002/elps.202100098, https://doi.org/10.4283/JMAG.2019.24.1.XXX, https://doi.org/10.1108/HFF-11-2020-0704. 

10. References are as per journal style.

11. Conclusion should be short and more summarized.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, in general current article is fine, but its required some revisions which is critical for this type of research.

First of all, manuscript should be edited for proper use of English language: grammar, punctuation, spelling, terminology and overall style.

There are various manuscript preparation inaccuracies, authors should revise manuscript preparation guidelines of the research journal Applied Sciences.

Performed literature review is a bit too limited and to old, it should be slightly expanded / performed more in detail with a modern references.

Why was used RNG k-e turbulence model? maybe it should be more detail explained, look at https://doi.org/10.3846/transport.2020.12335 (Review of turbulence models).

Like a reader, I will request to provide a grid on graphs, in all of them, will be better displayed and present of results, additional for reader will be more confortable to compare obtain results.

More major drawback of the manuscript - analysis of the results / simulations. Analysis of the results should be performed more in detail.

For this type of research is critical to provide mesh depend study (grid performance) what is very good done in research, maybe it possible display in table form not by sentence only.

Conclusions should be reconsidered. In general, conclusions should consist of explained main contribution of the authors, novelty of the research and its results, key findings, practical application possibilities, future work, etc.

Also, it should be more clearly explained how the performed research is related with journal scope.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Good paper after correction. No more remarks.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf