CFD Numerical Simulation of Slurry Flow Characteristics Under the Clogged Form of Coal Gangue Slurry Transportation Pipeline

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "CFD Numerical Simulation of Slurry Flow Characteristics under the Clogged Form of Coal Gangue Slurry Transportation Pipeline" investigates the causes, characteristics, and mitigation strategies of pipeline blockages in slurry transport systems using CFD simulations. The study addresses a critical issue in coal mining operations—pipeline blockages in coal gangue slurry transport, which significantly affect operational efficiency and safety. It provides practical insights and recommendations for mitigating blockage-related challenges, emphasizing the importance of smooth pipeline surfaces and optimized flow conditions. In addition, the study provides actionable suggestions, such as the use of low-roughness pipeline materials and the importance of timely blockage removal, which can directly benefit industrial practices. While the analysis is thorough, the novelty of the study is somewhat limited.

1) Similar CFD-based studies on slurry transport exist. The manuscript should explicitly highlight its unique contributions compared to previous works.

2) Although the authors reference relevant literature, they do not thoroughly compare their findings with existing studies, particularly regarding pressure and velocity gradients in blocked pipelines.

3) The figures, while informative, could be more engaging with clearer annotations and a consistent style. Including comparative tables summarizing key findings (e.g., pressure drop for different blockage types and degrees) would enhance readability and impact.

4) The study does not sufficiently address the broader implications of pipeline blockages on environmental sustainability or economic efficiency. Including this context would strengthen its practical relevance.

5) There are grammatical issues and awkward phrasing in the manuscript. For example, the abstract could be more concise, and certain sections lack a smooth flow. Conduct a thorough language review to improve clarity and readability. Shorten redundant explanations and ensure consistency in technical terms.

6) Ensure that all abbreviations (e.g., CFD, FLUENT) are defined upon first use and consistently used throughout.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are grammatical issues and awkward phrasing in the manuscript. For example, the abstract could be more concise, and certain sections lack a smooth flow. Conduct a thorough language review to improve clarity and readability. Shorten redundant explanations and ensure consistency in technical terms.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations to the authors for the unique study carried out in the article. Please keep in mind a few recommendations:

- please specify the pipe diameter and material from the beginning;

- why does the graph in figure 2 stop at a distance of approximately 45 m when the pipe is longer?

- on line 119 you mentioned a calculation with certain theoretical formulas, please specify what these formulas/equations are;

- it was interesting, in figure 4, to include real images of such situations.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Motivation for this research is explained. Introduction contain relevant references. Experimental setup is appropriately described and numerical approach is presented. Results are consistently presented and conclusions are drawn.

The Reviewer has a few queries:

- presumably the pressure gauges 2 and 3 have been positioned in such way to capture the effect of valve 2 between them? However these two measurements are not sufficient to validate the simulation (Fig 3). Pressures measured at points 1 and 4 are not included in this graph - why? Please review this provide robust explanation for validation of your numerical model.

- you're modelling the fluid as non-Newtonian Bingham slurry which is generally appropriate. Can you please confirm that this approach was taken for ALL fluid properties and check that all equations used to determine the properties and assumptions are clearly stated in the methodology (density, viscosity, etc.)?

- what is the difference between theoretical calculations and simulations? Surely those should be the same? Fig 10 does not seem to add value to the manuscript.

- three graphs presented in Figs 11-13 are very difficult for the viewer to visually compare; perhaps you can consider a different way of presenting this data? Alternatively please add detailed comparison in the discussion. Same can be done for other Figures too.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You used the abbreviation CFD, which stands for Computational Fluid Dynamics, in the abstract, but since CFD is not discussed in the abstract, there's no need to use the abbreviation there. However, you should use CFD in the introduction. Once you introduce the abbreviation in the introduction, you can use CFD throughout the rest of the document.

And since there is no abbreviation for DAS in the introduction, you must introduce it before using the abbreviation.

Line 137-142: it's standard to leave a space between a number and its unit of measurement.

Line 255-266: Revise Font, and do not use the italic style

Equation is a kind of sentence, so there must be punctuation after all equations

Line 299: where

Line 329: under

Should not be capitals

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx