Numerical Simulation of the Tip Leakage Vortex Characteristics in a Semi-Open Centrifugal Pump
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
93, 101 and others - no space between values and units, it requires the corrections in the whole manuscript.
113 - 118 - the description of the turbulence model is a bit inconsistent - the blending function F2 is completly written but the function F1 dosn't!
116 (3) - a1 should be α1.
144 (and Fig. 6) - only the experimentally measured head is published, the measured efficiency doesn't, but in the line 101 is presented the measurement error of the efficiency! This fact requires a comment.
172 - the line requires correction (stop).
182 - the p with the overline should be P.
320 - in the conclusions are very good summarised the results, but generalised conclusions or recommendation and further direction of the research miss.
Author Response
Thanks for the excellent comments of the reviewer. The corresponding replies and modifications are detailed as the following: The revised manuscript shows the new/changed text using track changes.
93, 101 and others - no space between values and units, it requires the corrections in the whole manuscript.
Reply: The space has been added values and units in the whole manuscript. (Line93, Line101, Line104, Line123)
113 - 118 - the description of the turbulence model is a bit inconsistent - the blending function F2 is completly written but the function F1 dosn't.
Reply: The equation of blending function F1 is added. (Line116 and 117)
116 (3) - a1 should be α1.
Reply: a1 has been replaced by α1 in equation (3). (Line115)
144 (and Fig. 6) - only the experimentally measured head is published, the measured efficiency doesn't, but in the line 101 is presented the measurement error of the efficiency! This fact requires a comment.
Reply: The efficiency error in section 2.2 is the calibration error when the test rig was built. We thought the comparison of head between experimental data and numerical results can verify the accuracy of numerical simulation method. So there is no efficiency in the original manuscript. In order to enhance the rigor of paper, we have added the experimental efficiency data in the Figure 6.
172 - the line requires correction (stop).
Reply: This has been corrected. (Line172)
182 - the p with the overline should be P.
Reply: the p with the overline has been replaced by P in equation (8). (Line181)
320 - in the conclusions are very good summarised the results, but generalised conclusions or recommendation and further direction of the research miss.
Reply: The conclusion of this paper is re-summarized and optimized. We combine conclusion 1 with conclusion 2 of the original manuscript, and the generalised recommendation and further direction is presented in conclusion (4). (Line298 - 323).
Additional modifications:
Figure names have been improved and perfected. (Figure1, 6 and 7). Some language expression problems have been modified. Some expressions have been modified to reduce the similarity index. But there are still some proper nouns that cannot be changed, for example, "pressure surface and suction surface of the blade", "the leading edge and trailing edge of the blade", "tip leakage vortex", "span", etc.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents simulation results for tip leakage vortex of a semi-open centrifugal pump. The paper details the equation, the mesh used for simulation and illustrates simulation results in a good format. However, there are several grammatical mistakes throughout the article and I advice to proof read the article multiple times before resubmitting. A lot of sentences do not read well and the text becomes hard to follow. For eg. statements like this: "The static pressure distribution law near the leading edge is varies while reducing the static pressure coefficient." do not make sense. A few other are listed below
Line 17 and 18 needs to be redrafted to be more clear.
Line 22 and 23: improper use of word "item", term would be more proper
Line 38 and 39: Repeated use of numerical simulation
Line 156: observer should be observed
Line 207: module should be modulus
I would encourage the authors to resubmit the manuscript after fixing the errors and proofreading the manuscript multiple times.
Author Response
Thanks for the excellent comments of the reviewer. The corresponding replies and modifications are detailed as the following: The revised manuscript shows the new/changed text using track changes.
This paper presents simulation results for tip leakage vortex of a semi-open centrifugal pump. The paper details the equation, the mesh used for simulation and illustrates simulation results in a good format. However, there are several grammatical mistakes throughout the article and I advice to proof read the article multiple times before resubmitting. A lot of sentences do not read well and the text becomes hard to follow. For eg. statements like this: "The static pressure distribution law near the leading edge is varies while reducing the static pressure coefficient." do not make sense. A few other are listed below.
Reply: A lot of grammar and unclear expressions in the paper have been modified. For example, The static pressure coefficient of blade surface is reduced and the distribution law near the leading edge is changed because of the influence of leakage vortex on flow field.
Line 17 and 18 needs to be redrafted to be more clear.
Reply: It has been redrafted. "The leakage vortex formed in the tip clearance led to 18.7% and 14.4% decrease in head and efficiency under design condition respectively, and the bigger the flow rate, the fast the performance decrease." (Line16 - 18)
Line 22 and 23: improper use of word "item", term would be more proper
Reply: The "item" in the original manuscript have replaced by "term". (Line23, Line 24, Line257 - 293)
Line 38 and 39: Repeated use of numerical simulation
Reply: We have deleted the repeated parts. (Line38)
Line 156: observer should be observed
Reply: The "observer" in the original manuscript have replaced by "observed". (Line172)
Line 207: module should be modulus
Reply: The "module" in the original manuscript have replaced by "modulus". (Line208)
I would encourage the authors to resubmit the manuscript after fixing the errors and proofreading the manuscript multiple times.
Reply: The grammatical errors and the unclear expressions in the paper have been improved.
Additional modifications:
Figure names have been improved and perfected. (Figure1, 6 and 7). Some language expression problems have been modified. Some expressions have been modified to reduce the similarity index. But there are still some proper nouns that cannot be changed, for example, "pressure surface and suction surface of the blade", "the leading edge and trailing edge of the blade", "tip leakage vortex", "span", etc.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
