Next Article in Journal
The Dynamics of Water Wells Efficiency Reduction and Ageing Process Compensation
Previous Article in Journal
Catchment Hydrological Modeling with Soil Thermal Dynamics during Seasonal Freeze-Thaw Cycles
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

Impact of Main Pipe Flow Velocity on Leakage and Intrusion Flow: An Experimental Study

Water 2019, 11(1), 118; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11010118
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2019, 11(1), 118; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11010118
Received: 27 November 2018 / Revised: 30 December 2018 / Accepted: 7 January 2019 / Published: 10 January 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Hydraulics)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper describes the impact of main pipe flow velocity on leakage and intrusion flow.


The overall material is on a basic level but acceptable; however, some contents is missing in my opinion:


1) More description of the standard orifice equation.

2) In several figures, the orifice pressure is described with a pipe length (Figs. 6, 9, 12). I propose to use the pressure value instead.

3) Relating to my point #2, please add a description in section 2 on how the pipe length relates to the orifice pressure.

4) It would be good to attempt to make a physics-based model which captures the measured results. And compare this to the standard orifice equation mentioned in my point #1.

Author Response

Please find the response to reviewers in the attachment.


Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents the results of some experiments to study the effect of the main pipe flow velocity on the water leakage (orifice outflow) and intrusion (orifice inflow). The paper is very interesting but, since it only shows experimental results, it should be published as a TECHNICAL NOTE. Nevertheless, some aspects of the paper should be revised and improved:

The manuscript requires careful attention to presentation. The text must be carefully checked in terms of styles and formatting for symbols, equations, figures, tables and references. For      example, subscript “i” in Figure 12, “The” with small letters in line 235, etc.

Lines 85-87: “The images were processed with AutoCAD, then the minimum cross-sectional area at the vena contracta (the point where the diameter of the stream is the least) ant the tilt angle (degree of inclination) of the outflow jet were calculated”. The authors should better explain how they measure the contraction area of the jet.

Line 95: “with a range of 700 bar”. Sure? Do the authors use a pressure transducer of 700 bar to measure pressures of 2 m?

Figure 6: Are there tests with main pipe velocity = 0? Is the water stopped in the main pipe? If water exits through the orifice, the water cannot be stopped in the main pipe.

Figure 6: Is the maximum pressure 5 m? Is it not possible to test with higher pressures?

Lines 144-146: “Because of the main pipe flow velocity, the shape of the cross-section of the jet in this study is different from that of the conventional flow through an orifice located at      the wall of a pressure tank”. The authors should better explain this statement.

Line 172: “velocity coefficient”. This coefficient is not defined.

Line 174: “resistance coefficient”. This coefficient is not defined.

Lines 248-249: “It is clear that the difference in the inflow and outflow discharge coefficients as observed is mainly related due to the inertia (the kinetic energy) of the main pipe flow”. The authors should better explain and justify this statement.

The authors should indicate the future developments of the research in the conclusions.

To conclude, in my opinion, the paper can be accepted as a TECHNICAL NOTE with minor revisions, mainly related to complete and clarify some issues.


Author Response

Please find the response to reviewers in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The changes are fine, although I still think pressure should be written in addition to the unit m.

Reviewer 2 Report

After this second review, the authors have made changes and the paper has been improved significantly.


Back to TopTop