Fluid–Structure Interactions in Pump-Turbines: A Comprehensive Review
, Jianfeng Zhu 2, Xingxing Huang 3,4, Shenjie Gao 2, Zhengwei Wang 3,* and Jian Liu 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper covers a wide range of important topics in pump-turbine research. It is well-organized and follows a logical structure, from general background to detailed studies on flow behavior, structural vibration, rotor-stator interaction (RSI), cavitation, and fatigue.
Technically, the proposed paper is solid. It explains many important topics clearly and includes a good mix of experimental and numerical studies. However, most of the paper summarizes past work without comparing or evaluating it. It would be better to discuss what works well, what does not, and what still needs to be improved. For example, when talking about different simulation models or design methods, the paper should explain which are most effective and under what conditions.
The paper is clearly written for a technical audience and shows strong knowledge of the field. There are, however, some areas where it could be improved to make the paper clearer.
Firstly, the order of the keywords could be reconsidered to emphasize the content more. For example, the keyword "hydrodynamic vibration” has a broader search base compared to "hump region”, and placing it earlier could enhance the paper's visibility to a wider audience.
Phrases like “this paper focuses on…” or “research shows that…” appear too many times throughout the manuscript. Cutting out these repeated phrases would help the writing feel tighter.
A part of the consitutive elements from the equations presented at page 14 are lacking an explanation (Ps; Am,n; Φm,n; ; Zgv).
Some figures are too large and occupy too much space, such as fig. 3 or fig. 9, while others, such as fig. 8 and fig. 11, are redundant due to their illegible legends, which make them difficult to interpret. The size of the font used for the captions (a) and (b) from fig. 7 is too large. The caption from fig. 10 is too short and vague, and should be rephrased.
Some of the references used in the paper could not be found online (only as citations in other papers) or only available in Chinese or Japanese. These include references [3],[29], [44], [52], [54], [67], [80], [111], [112],[130],[131]. The styles in which the references were written are not consistent, with the titles of the papers being either straight or italic, the titles of the journals being written in either regular font or caps, and the years being either written in either bold or regular font. The uear from reference [139] is 1941, not 2022.
The conclusions need more work. Right now, it mostly repeats what was already said. A good conclusion should briefly summarize the most important points and suggest next steps for research.
In short, the paper does a good job collecting information about the FSI in pump-turbines and shows a strong technical understanding. With the suggested improvements, the paper could serve as a very helpful resource for researchers and engineers working in this field. Thus, the writing should be simpler and clearer, the formatting cleaned up, and the comparative analysis deeper.
Author Response
|
First of all, we sincerely appreciate the professional suggestions you have put forward for this study! These opinions have provided an important improvement direction for the theoretical depth and logical integrity of the paper. We attach great importance to each of your feedback, have organized a team to carry out a systematic revision of the full text, and clearly marked the adjusted contents in the revised manuscript. The following are the detailed responses to your opinions and the description of the modifications.
|
|
Comments 1: The order of the keywords could be reconsidered to emphasize the content more. For example, the keyword "hydrodynamic vibration” has a broader search base compared to "hump region”, and placing it earlier could enhance the paper's visibility to a wider audience. |
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made revisions to this; please refer to the keywords on the first page.
|
|
Comments 2: Phrases like “this paper focuses on…” or “research shows that…” appear too many times throughout the manuscript. Cutting out these repeated phrases would help the writing feel tighter. |
|
Response 2: We agree. We have revised the relevant descriptions in the text. |
|
Comments 3: A part of the consitutive elements from the equations presented at page 14 are lacking an explanation (Ps; Am,n; Φm,n; ; Zgv). |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response 3: We have added relevant explanations. Please refer to Page 14.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comments 4: Some figures are too large and occupy too much space, such as fig. 3 or fig. 9, while others, such as fig. 8 and fig. 11, are redundant due to their illegible legends, which make them difficult to interpret. The size of the font used for the captions (a) and (b) from fig. 7 is too large. The caption from fig. 10 is too short and vague, and should be rephrased. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response 4: Your suggestions are highly valued, and we have carefully incorporated them into the revision. Please refer to Page 4, Page 9, Page 10 and Page 11. The (a)(b) in Figure 7 are not annotations but captions of the subfigures.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comments 5: Some of the references used in the paper could not be found online (only as citations in other papers) or only available in Chinese or Japanese. These include references [3],[29], [44], [52], [54], [67], [80], [111], [112],[130],[131]. The styles in which the references were written are not consistent, with the titles of the papers being either straight or italic, the titles of the journals being written in either regular font or caps, and the years being either written in either bold or regular font. The year from reference [139] is 1941, not 2022. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response 5: We appreciate your constructive suggestions. Reference [29] is a Japanese-language paper. Reference [130] is a Chinese-language paper. Reference [139] After verification, it is indeed a 2022 literature. We have also made revisions to the other issues you mentioned. Please refer to Pages 21 to 29.
|
|
Comments 6: The conclusions need more work. Right now, it mostly repeats what was already said. A good conclusion should briefly summarize the most important points and suggest next steps for research. |
|
Response 6: Many thanks for the insightful comments, which have guided us to enhance the technical depth and presentation quality. We have optimized the conclusion section according to your suggestions. Please refer to Page 20.
|
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study covers Fluid-Structure Interactions in Pump Turbines: A Comprehensive Review. This topic is among the current topics in the literature and is suitable for the purpose and scope of the journal.
However, the term "Review" in the title is confusing with the article type. It is recommended that the article is either defined as Review or removed from the title.
The number of keywords is sufficient. However, the expression "S" characteristic region should be clarified, can another keyword expressing this be used?
The content of the study covers the storage, technology and stability of renewable energy in a global sense. The effects of these factors on the process are discussed.
The study includes experimental work. It is sufficient to emphasize this part in the abstract.
As a method, internal flow dynamics, vibration and acoustic properties, and structural behaviors such as runner deformation and stress distribution were investigated. For this, FSI modeling and data analysis were performed.
The subject under consideration seems to be addressed in an interdisciplinary context. The authors can represent this disciplinary work.
The references used in the study are directly related to the study. and has a rich content.
The number of visual materials used in the article is 22 and is quite explanatory.
Is it possible to present the 2nd and 3rd titles under a single title? For example, as Problem and Techniques or Method and Method?
Can the 4th and 5th titles be defined as Results?
Having multiple titles may make it difficult for the reader to focus. However, this decision belongs to the authors.
The methods and techniques used in the study are of a quality that will solve the problem addressed. The numerical data is verifiable.
Author Response
|
We hereby extend our sincere gratitude! Thank you for the profound insights and constructive suggestions put forward for this study, which have greatly assisted us in improving the quality of the paper. We have carried out a comprehensive revision in strict accordance with your suggestions, and the adjustments have been carefully marked in the revised manuscript. The detailed responses to each comment and the description of modifications are as follows:
|
|
Comments 1: The number of keywords is sufficient. However, the expression "S" characteristic region should be clarified, can another keyword expressing this be used? |
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, we have changed "S characteristic region" to "S-shaped characteristics". Please refer to the keywords on the first page.
|
|
Comments 2: Is it possible to present the 2nd and 3rd titles under a single title? For example, as Problem and Techniques or Method and Method? |
|
Response 2: We appreciate your constructive suggestions. The structural arrangement of this paper first introduces the flow field analysis, and then presents the progress of structural field and fluid-structure interaction (FSI) analysis. Given the different focuses of these introductions, it may not be feasible to combine the second and third titles into one. However, we still appreciate your suggestions very much. |
|
Comments 3: Can the 4th and 5th titles be defined as Results? |
|
Response 3: Thank you for your question. The fourth part focuses on hydraulic excitation, emphasizing the correlation between "hydraulic excitation" and "vibration response". The fifth part discusses fatigue damage, which refers to crack or fracture phenomena in materials or structures under alternating loads. These two parts cannot be defined as conclusions. |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe review manuscript is well written. However, I would suggest that while describing the numerical results, the authors should include some description of the models that were used. For example, what set of equations (e.g. Navier Stokes equations) were used in modeling the fluid's interaction with the solid?
Author Response
|
We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments provided for this study! These suggestions are of great significance for improving the quality of the paper, and we have comprehensively sorted out and revised the manuscript in response to your feedback. Below are the detailed responses to each of your comments and the corresponding modification descriptions:
|
|
Comments 1: However, I would suggest that while describing the numerical results, the authors should include some description of the models that were used. For example, what set of equations (e.g. Navier Stokes equations) were used in modeling the fluid's interaction with the solid? |
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. We have added the relevant content. Please refer to Section 3.1 on Page 11.
|
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
