Mass Flow Function Correlation for Solid and Honeycomb Land Labyrinth Seals including Fin Front Angle, Clearance, Fin Number and Honeycomb Geometry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors studied the effects of several geometry factors (fin front angle, clearance, number of 8 fins, and honeycomb cell diameter and depth) on the mass flow function of solid and honeycomb 9 land were studied experimentally. The authors also presented the correlation equations of the mass 19 flow functions of solid land and honeycomb land labyrinth seals are presented based on the exper- 20 imental results, which represent the effects of fin front angle, clearance, pressure ratio, and diameter 21 and depth of honeycomb cell

The study was perfectly described through the presentation of various schematics, pictures, and tables describing the experimental set-ups.

The various experimental parts and results were explained clearly, methodically and without redundancy, which proves the quality of this study.

The article is very well written, with no difficulties of comprehension or scientific ambiguity, demonstrating the authors' skill on the subject

Therfore, the reviewer has no doubts about the quality of this article and its possible publication in the journal.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The title is too long and needs to be shortened.

2. The abstract does not contain the most important results obtained. Therefore, a sample of the most important obtained results should be added. Also, a new sentence should be added to show the point of originality in the research.

3. The introduction section is very brief; new recent literature should be added that presents the latest solutions and results related to the research topic. Finally, a new paragraph should be added at the end of this section that details the point of authenticity.

3.

a. A general note for all paper sections: all figures should be located after the text and discussions that cited the figure, and not vice versa.

 

b. A new table or figure of the validation of the test rig should be added and compared results with the results of other researchers to prove the accuracy of the results.

c. The other important point: how many tests that you conducted, and why you selected this number of tests?

d. Did you design the test of the experimental work based on the Design of experiments (DOE) or not?

e. What are the contributions of each factor (e.g., FFA, Number of fin, Clearance, etc.)? and what is the most effective factor?

f.  In the experimental section: the picture of the real test rig must be added in addition to the Schematic of the test rig.

4. The results section does not sufficiently discuss the results and didn’t explain the physical reasons for the results.

5. The conclusions section needs to be revised to be more accurate and should be focused on the main findings points by the results and added some points for future work.

There are some mistakes and grammar errors so it should be made double check to correct the complete paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript studies the effects of several geometry factors on the mass flow function of solid and honeycomb land by using experimental methods. There are two problems as follows:

(1)    What is the uncertainty of the test results?

(2)    How the ranges of several variables were determined? For example, why did you select 60, 75, 90 as the value of FFA?

(3)    The conclusions of the manuscript should be condensed

It's OK.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is quite well written and the results are clearly presented. The results focused on the variation of mass flow rate. Will it be more sensible to measure the pressure drop to determine the effectiveness rather than the blockage effects? It may be even better to provide some flow visualization results too but I leave it to the authors to decide. 

They are ok.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1 Based on your response, the authors used DoE; Please explain which algorithm that be used and which kind of analysis was used, and the results of these analyses?

[1 Point 4-d: Did you design the test of the experimental work based on the Design of experiments (DOE) or not?

(Response 4-d: Yes. We selected our test cases using Design of Experiments (DOE), however, actual gap size was measured before each test and the value was used to derive the correlation.)]

 

2 Based on your response, the authors found contributions of each factor; what are their values, It should be added a new Table that explains the percentage contribution for each factor.

[Point 4-e: What are the contributions of each factor (e.g., FFA, Number of fin, Clearance, etc.)? and what is the most effective factor?

(Response 4-e: For the solid land configuration, both the gap and the fin front angle were identified as the most influential factors on the mass flow function. In the case of the honeycomb land configuration, it appears that a combination of factors has a more complex impact, suggesting the need for further research in this regard.)]

 

3.- Thank you for sharing the picture of the test rig. The picture of the complete test rig should be added to the paper and pointed to the main parts.

[Point 4-f: In the experimental section: the picture of the real test rig must be added in addition to the Schematic of the test rig.

(Response 4-f: Thank you for the comment. Below is the actual picture of test rig. In the paper, we included only the schematic of test rig for ease explanation. Actual fin shapes are presented in Fig. 3 of the orginal manuscirpt.)]

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made the necessary corrections.