Lattice Boltzmann Simulation of Cavitating Flow in a Two-Dimensional Nozzle with Moving Needle Valve

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the manuscript is well written and can be considered for publication if the authors adress the following:

- A mesh refinement study is crucial to ensure the model is accurate, reliable, and computationally efficient. It is a critical process in the development and validation of CFD models, ensuring that the simulations can be trusted for engineering analysis and decision-making.

- Please provide appropriate references for the following and improve the explanation according to the added references:

1) Shan-Chen model, eq (11-12), and why the C-S equation of state is chosen for this particular study.

2) Refiling algorithms, shown in sub-section 1.2

3) Boundary condition formulation presented in section 2 (computational domain and boundaries), namely: half step bounce-back and Zou-He boundary conditions. Also present the equations for schemes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The paper presents a study on a numerical model of a nozzle with a moving needle. Its novelty lies in its exploration of cavitation phenomena using the lattice Boltzmann method (LBM). While the research is promising, it requires significant revisions before it can be considered for publication. Specifically, there is a need to succinctly and comprehensively present the results. Major comments: 1. Clearly state the novelty of your work. 2. Please expand your introduction including recent review papers that shows the potential of the Lattice Boltzmann Method in different applied fields and the current research perspectives. 3. Define parameters such as relaxation time and viscosity. 4. Establish the equivalent physical dimensions of the model, not just computational units. 5. Validate the model. 6. Discuss any observed acoustical effects. 7. Reduce the number of figures; currently, there are 21 figures, and the presentation of results needs to be more concise. 8. Declare the limitations of the study and propose avenues for future research. 9. Include a nomenclature table and ensure all symbols are defined in the text. Minor comments: Start section numbering from 1. Correct typographical errors, such as changing "x-" to "x."

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors used the pseudo-potential lattice Boltzmann model with refilling algorithms for moving boundary treatment to simulate the large density ratio cavitating flow in a 2D nozzle with the periodic motion of the needle valve. I have raised some issues. The paper can be revised according to the following comments:

-          Several equations need to be reviewed and revised, notably Equation 7. Additionally, explain the significance of the matrix N.

-          Some symbols are not defined properly a nomenclature should be added.

-          Utilize the new enhanced force scheme S as detailed in the referenced literature:

·         https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.euromechflu.2024.01.006

·         https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1080/10407790.2023.2229012

·         https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.14710/ijred.2023.46696

·         ….

-          Provide a brief explanation regarding the selection process of EOS parameters and include a corresponding reference.

-          The grid study should be added.

-          Explain the rationale behind selecting an amplitude of A = 200 and identify the critical value at which the flow regime undergoes a significant change.

-          Describe the choice of small frequency values i.e. 1/50000 and how changes in frequency have a lesser impact on density and provide corresponding physical explanations.

-          The literature review should be refined, and the authors should point out the main findings and drawbacks of the subject. Also, more literature should be involved.

-          The conclusions should be deleted in the Introduction.

-          The English should be polished.

….

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English should be polished.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the suggestions effectively. I consider that could be accepted for publication.

Comments:

Only trivial aspects:

1. Please double-check for typos, I highlight some in the PDF.

2. In the introduction, there are abbreviations without a definition.

3. consider presenting all the methodology followed in a single chapter (numerical, methods, validation, grid independence)

4. Please consider integrating the prospective to the conclusions

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A double check for typos before publication is suggested.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my comments and revised the manuscript. The manuscript in its present form may now be considered for publication.
 

Author Response

Manuscript ID: processes-2925959

 

Title: Lattice Boltzmann simulation of cavitating flow in a two-dimensional nozzle with moving needle valve

 

Author name: Fan Yang, Mengyao Dai, Hu Jin

Response to the comments

Dear editor,

We thank the referees for their careful reading of our paper. We have carefully considered the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments. All the revisions have been addressed in the Reply and marked in red color in the manuscript. We hope the revised manuscript can be considered acceptable.