Liquid–Solid Flow Characteristics in Vertical Swirling Hydraulic Transportation with Tangential Jet Inlet

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed my comments. I recommend publication of the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no comments.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no relevant comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

• Abstract

The abstract is concise yet provides a good and useful overview of the paper.

• Introduction

The introduction is well written and introduces the reader to the topic. The literature review is adequate. I suggest adding a concluding paragraph to further discuss the strengths and limitations of existing methods at the end of the introduction to justify the need for the present study and motivate the reader.

• The body part of the paper

The methodology is sound and solid and is clearly explained. The paper uses standard analysis tools.

• Conclusion

The results are well described and are of practical value. Discussions and conclusions are useful and solid.

• Reference

References are relevant.

General comments:

 The paper deals with the simulation of two-phase flows in swirling conditions with an inlet jet. The CFD-DEM method has been used which brings an element of novelty to the paper. The topic is not clearly within the scope of the journal. The authors need to clarify how the paper is connected with marine science and engineering. The paper is well written and well organized. My only suggestion for the authors is to clarify the use of the Realizable k-Epsilon model. In line 122 it is stated that the model is suitable for swirling flows. This statement needs to be justified by citing relevant references and possibly comparing the results with other turbulence models. Also, Figure 4 does not clearly show a mesh/time-step independence. This needs to be further discussed and justified.