Research on the Effect of Structural Parameters on Cavitation Performance of Shear Hydrodynamic Cavitation Generator
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsBoth minor and major comments in a document attached herewith.
MINOR CORRECTIONS
Page 1, Line 1: …. Cavitation is increasingly maturely applied ……
Comment: Don’t need to use “increasingly and maturely” together.
Page 1, Line 2: A numerical simulation study on the ……
Comment: Use a word between numerical and simulation such as “based”.
Page 1, Line 5 - 7: … The degradation rate of COD in water is taken …... simulation approach is validated.
Comment/Suggestions: Replace “taken” by other suitable word here. And re-write following section of the sentence:” …, thus the rationality of the …. is validated”.
Page 1, Line 11-13: ……The cavitation bubble …..with exact teeth, Re-write this sentence.
Page 2, Line 1-2: Moreover, since it is a …………… a promising application. Re-write it as it is confusing.
Page 2, Line 3 – 8: Provide references to support the reasons for cavitation formation.
Page 2, Line 11: Is it “Venture” or “Venturi”
Page 2: Read through this page carefully and correct some of the Language and Grammar mistakes.
Page 2: Line 15-18: How come void fraction reaches max value? Discuss this point?
Page 4: Table 1: How is the final selection of no of meshes of 966335 compared to the other two sizes can be justified in terms of percentage against the accuracy of calculations and the saving calculation time?
Page 5: First word of both Sub heading 2.2.2 words should be capital.
Page 5: Line 3-4: …gas and liquid phases are homogenous with no velocity between them.
Page 5: Line 5: The simulated results match to the experimental results.
Page 6: Line 18 -19: The no-slip wall ….monitored. Re-write this since start of this sentence is confusing.
Page 8: Line 13 n 16: “…. Experimental results are used ….” are to be replaced by were. “ …. a cavitator who consists …. Replace a better word for cavitator and use which for who.
Page 9: Line 9: “….The COD degradation rate formula…. “. Use suitable word for formula and re-arrange this sentence.
MAJOR CORRECTIONS
1. Abstract’s purpose is to say a brief introduction of the research project and say things which are broadly understandable. All the details
2. of the outcome of the research work should be stated in Conclusion. Re-write the shorter Abstracter and try to avoid those details which are not understandable after reading through the full article.
3. Page 2: Line 15-18: How come void fraction reaches max value? Describe this point?
4. Page 2: Line 21: Define this and provide significance of Critical Cavitation Number?
5. Page 6, Line 14: …. Fvap is the vaporization ………….taken as 50 ………..taken as 2000 000 m. There hasn’t been any reason or logic given to support these values or refer any refences to support these values.
6. Page 8, Line 17. If possible the level of water in the tank can be specified to estimate of potential energy in accordance to the volume fraction of the dyeing and printing contents
Comments on the Quality of English Languageno
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFigure 4 shows the volume fraction of cavitated bubbles at a speed of 1500 rpm. A comment is needed on what happens at higher or lower speeds. A similar comment would be desirable for Figure 5.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease read my comments.
Review on paper “Research on the effect of structural parameters on cavitation performance of shear hydraulic cavitator” by Fengxia Lyu, Ming Tang, Faqi Zhou, Xintong Zhang, Saiyue Han, Sheng Zhang
Authors of the given manuscript have numerically investigated different reasons for generation of cavitation process and validated partially cavitation process by experimental laboratory. For this they have applied to 3D (I believe) RANS approach with additional “cavitation” equations. They also presented meshing scheme and explained partly their boundary conditions for considered multiphase or rather saying two-phase (liquid-gas) turbulent flow system. In discussion section they have shown several plots of impact of various factors on generation cavity process in particularly, the number of teeth in case of one row and the number of rows of teeth as well as effect of value of angle of the tooth bevel and the value of exit diameter of their system. Their explanations of obtained results seem reasonable for me. Nevertheless, reading manuscript I have questions: a) when authors fix cavitation, do they compare calculated pressure in flow with the pressure benchmark needed for cavitation model equations (11-12)? b) as far as I understood the cavity is random process, does this somehow involve in mathematical modelling? c) cavity process includes behavior of bubbles of various sizes, and if it does and how your model responds it? d) do you take into account flow rotation, I don’t see any torque term in your system equations? e) your modelling seems one-way coupling, however in fact it must be definitely two-way coupling process! f) did you set flow boundary conditions on each teeth surface? And finally what’s your main and real novelty of your research? I think it fits for publishing after clarification of my remarks.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
