Gas Release and Solution as Possible Mechanism of Oscillation Damping in Water Hammer Flow

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript entitled “Gas Release and Solution as Possible Mechanism of Oscillations Damping in Water Hammer Flow” by Giuseppe Pezzinga deals with water hammer flow, putting into evidence that only unsteady friction cannot be fully responsible for the observed oscillation damping. The article is well-organized, with a clear introduction, methodology, results, and discussion. The experimental results indicate that gas release and solution in the pipeline can significantly reduce water hammer oscillations. However, I would like to suggest some minor improvements in the manuscript before the final consideration of publication in the MDPI water journal. My specific comments are:

1.      Please rewrite the abstract and add major numerical readings. The last sentence must show the overall outcome of the study and its usefulness.

2.      Too short paragraphs in the introduction can be merged together to form new big enough paragraphs.

3.      Line 33: recent papers? Please rewrite it, they are either experiments or individual studies. Please discuss what was important in those papers.

4.      Too much use of the word “paper”. Rather than this, authors should use “study”. (E.g., lines 7, 33, 45, 75, 84, 136, 280, and many others.).

5.      Minor grammatical and syntax errors in the manuscript should be corrected.

6.      It would be more appropriate if authors can use colored lines in the figures to show a clear difference between experimental and 1D or 2D head oscillation computed values. Currently, it is hard to distinguish between them.

7.      The conclusion should be generalized. It is just a repetition of an abstract, please rewrite it completely and highlight the major outcome of your work with limitations and future directions.

Minor grammatical and syntax errors in the manuscript should be corrected.

Author Response

See attached word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript, "Gas Release and Solution as Possible Mechanism of Oscillations Damping in Water Hammer Flow" for the Water journal. In this paper, the use of 1D and 2D description of the flow field are considered as well as both constant and variable gaseous mass for water hammer flow. In my opinion, such research is not novelty and has little scientific interest in the international scale.

The paper is well-organized, containing all of the expected components. The applied methods were professional and effective in attaining the object of this work. I found a table and the figures utilized in your paper to be generally useful. Conclusions are supported by the results presented in this paper.

The text requires an editorial correction.

Author Response

See attached word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1.    The authors should provide a clear and detailed research problem statement and explain the rationale for modeling water hammer flow. In addition, they should include more technical details about their model development, including any modeling assumptions and numerical methods used.

2.    The paper could benefit from a more organized structure that separates out different sections, such as experimental setup, model development, results, and discussion, to enhance readability and understanding.

3.    The authors could discuss potential scope limitations of their models beyond water hammer flow and evaluate the efficacy of their micro-genetic algorithm method for parameter estimation.

4.    Given the critical role of simplifying assumptions in models, the authors should clearly describe these assumptions and their potential impacts on the accuracy of the results.

5.    Finally, the authors could expand upon the implications of their research findings and critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their modeling approach. For example, they may compare and analyze their calibration method with existing literature to determine its relative advantages and disadvantages.

Author Response

See attached word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

accept