Minor Loss Coefficient for Abrupt Section Changes in a Cylindrical Pipe Using a Numerical Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your submission. It is my pleasure to have an opportunity to conduct the review process. The article used numerical simulation method to investigate the problem of Minor losses coefficient for abrupt section changes in a cylindrical pipe. In response to the article, the following points are suggested.

(1) The order of references in the article is slightly confusing, and I hope that they will be cited in the order of the article.

(2) The introduction of the article mentions that there are fewer simulation studies on the pressure loss coefficient. However, in the introduction, there is almost no cited literature on research using numerical simulation methods, is it true that no research has ever been done? It is hoped to add research and compare the simulation methods in other studies.

 

(3) Although the article has been researched by simulation method, not much modification has been made in the theoretical model of coefficient. How to reflect the creation point of the article? Is the article intended to obtain a modified pressure loss coefficient model with numerical simulation study? Or just to verify the reliability of the simulation method?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English writing is quite good, with minor formatting changes to the text, such as line 127.

Author Response

A file with point by point answer has been uploaded in the system.

Authors are very grateful to the reviewer's comments and the text has been improved using that comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Minor losses coefficient for abrupt section changes in a cylindrical pipe using a numerical approach.

The novelty of the work is poorly articulated. The sudden expansion task appears more methodological, and it is uncertain whether the results will be of interest to a broad readership. When discussing technical applications, it is essential to clearly outline how the obtained results can be beneficial, avoiding general statements.

Furthermore, the document delves into excessive detail on many well-known topics, such as the turbulent model with a multitude of formulas, which may be self-evident for the given problem statement. It is advisable for the authors to streamline descriptions to eliminate redundancy.

Regarding Figure 14, it remains unclear whether your model outperforms or underperforms compared to other models and experimental data.

Formal remark

The first sentence in the conclusion section seems redundant.

 

 

Author Response

A file with a detailed answer, including point by point rebuttal, has been uploaded in the system.

Authors should thank very much the comments by the present reviewer. The inclusion of the recommendations has improved the quality of the final article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with the corrections made by the authors, the paper can be accepted for publication. 

Author Response

Thank you for your review report.