Numerical Simulations of Hydraulic Characteristics of A Flow Discharge Measurement Process with A Plate Flowmeter in A U-Channel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject is current and very important. Effective irrigation water management begins with accurate water measurement. Water measurement is required to determine both total volumes of water and flow rates pumped. Measurement of volumes will verify that the proper amount of water is applied at each irrigation and that amounts permitted by water management districts are not exceeded. In this study, a new type of flow discharge measuring device of U-channel—plate flowmeter was firstly designed. The proposed new measurement system is interesting. He was also tested in the laboratory and on the numerical model. There is however an important issue regarding the sense of the topic taken up. The measuring system was tested in a laboratory. How the authors see its use in the field. There are various flow measurement systems for regular cross section (ultrasonic flow meter, Doppler, Radar Measurement, etc.). How is the proposed system better?

My basic remarks to the paper:

The work was not prepared in accordance with the publisher's guidelines. Literature review is correct but contains only basic items. Only 22 works were cited throughout the article. However, there is a lack of in-depth review of analyzed research problem with references to recent literature, for example: Sojka, M., Kozłowski, M., Stasik, R., Napierała, M., Kęsicka, B., Wróżyński, R., Jaskuła J., Liberacki D., Bykowski, J. (2019). Sustainable Water Management in Agriculture—The Impact of Drainage Water Management on Groundwater Table Dynamics and Subsurface Outflow. Sustainability, 11(15), 4201. The substantive part, where the materials and methods are shown is correct. Some description of hydraulic experiments and especially the description of the numerical model is lacking. What is the smallest flow that can be measured with this system? Does the measurement error increase for small flows? The paper lacks discussion. The discussion, which is very important in the scientific article. I see unfortunately a shortage of references to other publications. This is a serious problem in this work. Figures are too small and often illegible. Figure 6 lacks an axis description. I also have serious comments about English language and style. The article should be checked by a native speaker.

 

The article can be possibly recommended for publication, after major revision taking into account comments and especially a better reference to other work and results obtained by other researchers.

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers:

The serial number of this manuscript is water-622807, which is titled “Numerical simulation of the hydraulic characteristics in flow discharge measurement process with plate flowmeter in U-channel”. First of all, we are grateful for your valuable review comments on this manuscript. Your review comments precisely pointed out several deficiencies in this manuscript, which has profound guiding significance for further modifications and improvements of this manuscript and our future research work. We will give detailed answers to the above review comments proposed by the editors and reviewers one by one below.

The work was not prepared in accordance with the publisher's guidelines. Literature review is correct but contains only basic items. Only 22 works were cited throughout the article. However, there is a lack of in-depth review of analyzed research problem with references to recent literature, for example: Sojka, M., Kozłowski, M., Stasik, R., Napierała, M., Kęsicka, B., Wróżyński, R., Jaskuła J., Liberacki D., Bykowski, J. (2019). Sustainable Water Management in Agriculture—The Impact of Drainage Water Management on Groundwater Table Dynamics and Subsurface Outflow. Sustainability, 11(15), 4201. The substantive part, where the materials and methods are shown is correct. Some description of hydraulic experiments and especially the description of the numerical model is lacking. What is the smallest flow that can be measured with this system? Does the measurement error increase for small flows? The paper lacks discussion. The discussion, which is very important in the scientific article. I see unfortunately a shortage of references to other publications. This is a serious problem in this work. Figures are too small and often illegible. Figure 6 lacks an axis description. I also have serious comments about English language and style. The article should be checked by a native speaker.

Answer：We have supplemented the related research progress, and analyzed and summarized the related research progress. The revision can be seen in Page 2-3.At the same time, we have supplemented and modified the description of hydraulic experiments and the numerical model. The revision can be seen in Page 5-6.The smallest flow that can be measured with this system is 10m³/h and the maximum measurement error increase for small flows is 5%. We have modified the size of the diagram and added the coordinate title of Figure 6. The revision can be seen in Page 9-10.And we have asked native speakers to check the English language of the whole paper.

 

We have adopted red fonts to highlight the revised parts of the manuscript, which will help the editors and reviewers to review the manuscript again.

We have already answered review comments put forward by the editors and reviewers one by one in detail, and improvements and modifications have been made in the corresponding positions of this manuscript. We hope that the editors and reviewers will review the revised manuscript again. Thanks again to the editors and reviewers for their valuable review comments. If there are still any deficiencies in this manuscript, please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address below, and we will actively cooperate with the editors and reviewers to promptly modify the deficiencies in the manuscript. We deeply appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we are looking forward to receiving comments from the editors and reviewers.

Thank you and best regards,

Yours sincerely,

Yongye Li

 

 

The first author:

Name: Yongye Li

E-mail: [email protected]

Phone: +8613934239832

Address: College of Water Resource Science and Engineering, Taiyuan University of Technology, No. 79, Yingze Street, Wanbailin District, Taiyuan 030024, PR China.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

the paper proposes a new flow discharge measurement device that includes a plate flow meter

 

The results are compared with software runs to check weather the CFD model could reproduce the physical results

The paper is in line with the scope of the journal. It is very descriptive but lot of the text could be reduced by reminding to the figure or references, while certain details about the geometry of the structure need to be added more accurately

 

There are several parts that need to be clarified before the paper could be considered for publication:

 

Abstract:

                - what is the error of the flow meter? what is the 5.3, 6.2 and 6.8 errors related to?

                - there is no need to explain that the velocity increase or decrease from the side of the channel to the bottom, this is what happens in open channel and nothing new.

                - what position is the maximum compared to other type of channel ? I think that would be a more interesting result?

                - what is the maximum influence range?

 

Introduction

                - a figure with the different type of devices with generic sections and shape to provide elements of comparison and show why your structure performs better, perhaps including a table with the major advantage disadvantage?

                - the description of the cutthroat flume is very long, see my previous comment

                - what is etc after complicate calculation formula?

                - What is the problem with weirs (triangular etc) they are quite portable

                - what happens if your flow meter is hit by debris or vegetation get stuck to it?

                - i would move the description of the plate flow meter in the method section (the mathematical model section ), remove the description, is repeated in the figure and mention the figure1

                - more detail on the plate rod are needed, i.e., weight, type of bearings, cross section of the device, length. I would not be able to reproduce your results with these information, how long this would dip in the water etc 

               

Mathematical model (please change it to "Methods" and consolidate as per suggestion )

 

                - unless there are particular aspects of the governing equations that have been changed in order to tailor the numerical scheme to your results, these are pretty standard and straight from the manual, what is the advantage of having them there?

                - Information about the numerical model such as mesh size etc are needed.

                - figure 2 c you can split the channel to show its cross section, i wonder if it would not be better to put the assembly together? 

                - put the description of the experimental device back into the method section, also detail like "the water was pumped out of the tank...etc" are not really needed. What is the accuracy of the electromagnetic flow meter?

                - Figure 5 is a very important figure but it is really blurry, consider increasing its size

Model validation and results analysis

                - What is not clear is how the vertical velocity was measured? did you plunge the device deeper into water etc?

                - There is something missing here "The sections were selected, where were located at 0.5m away from the plate" ?

                - can you please add the measured section in figure 5?

                - figure 6 missing axis is this measured from the centre?

                - 3.2 what is the error compared to other standard methodology  in terms of flow rate measurement?

                - the explanation point on 4 about shock waves and bubbles is not rigorous. The shock wave form because of the Froude number generated by the presence of the flow past the obstacle (can't tell without Froude number), bubbles form because of air entrainment through the surface tanks to the turbulence generated on the free surface by the plate? See for example https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-9322(96)00049-3. It is possible to have cavitation at 0.54 m/s 

                - these explanation point need better reference from literature 

Please use the standard template from water or add the line number next to your text

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers:

The serial number of this manuscript is water-622807, which is titled “Numerical simulation of the hydraulic characteristics in flow discharge measurement process with plate flowmeter in U-channel”. First of all, we are grateful for your valuable review comments on this manuscript. Your review comments precisely pointed out several deficiencies in this manuscript, which has profound guiding significance for further modifications and improvements of this manuscript and our future research work. We will give detailed answers to the above review comments proposed by the editors and reviewers one by one below.

Abstract:

1．What is the error of the flow meter? what is the 5.3, 6.2 and 6.8 errors related to?

Answer: The relative error of the plate flowmeter is less than 5% by professional calibration.

5.3%, 6.2% and 6.8% errors respectively refer to the maximum relative errors between the simulated values of the transverse flow velocity, vertical flow velocity, and the relationship between measuring flow discharge and the deflection angle of the angle measuring plate and the experimental values.

There is no need to explain that the velocity increase or decrease from the side of the channel to the bottom, this is what happens in open channel and nothing new.

Answer: We agree with you and we have deleted this part.

What position is the maximum compared to other type of channel ? I think that would be a more interesting result?

Answer: Through the experimental research, it is found that, no matter what type of channel, the maximum vertical velocity of the downstream section near the plate flowmeter is located at a certain position below the free water surface during the flow discharge measurement with the plate flowmeter. In this paper, the hydraulic characteristics of plate flowmeter in U-channel are mainly studied.

What is the maximum influence range?

Answer: “The maximum influence range” refers to the maximum range of influence of the plate flowmeter on the flow disturbance.

Introduction:

1．A figure with the different type of devices with generic sections and shape to provide elements of comparison and show why your structure performs better, perhaps including a table with the major advantage disadvantage?

Answer: The revision can be seen in Page 3 and line 87-95.

The description of the cutthroat flume is very long, see my previous comment.

Answer: We have modified this part and the revision can be seen in Page 2.

What is etc after complicate calculation formula?

Answer：“complicate calculation formula” mainly means that there are many variables in the flow discharge calculation formula.

What is the problem with weirs (triangular etc) they are quite portable?

Answer：Triangle weir is a kind of portable measuring device, but it can only be installed without water in the practical application, and can not be installed in the channel with water. However, the plate flowmeter proposed in this paper does not have the above defects.

5.What happens if your flow meter is hit by debris or vegetation get stuck to it?

Answer：If your flowmeter is hit by debris or vegetation get stuck to it, it will lead to a large measurement error. This should try to be avoided as much as possible in application by taking appropriate measures.

I would move the description of the plate flow meter in the method section (the mathematical model section ), remove the description, is repeated in the figure and mention the figure1

Answer：We quite agree with you and we have removed the description of the plate flowmeter in the method section (the mathematical model section ).

More detail on the plate rod are needed, i.e., weight, type of bearings, cross section of the device, length. I would not be able to reproduce your results with these information, how long this would dip in the water etc

Answer：The maximum length of the expandable stainless steel stent in the plate flowmeter is 1.2m. The length, width and thickness of the angle measuring plate in the plate flowmeter are 50cm, 5cm and 1mm respectively. The weight of plate flowmeter does not exceed 2.5kg. The plate flowmeter can be immersed in water for any period of time according to the actual measurement needs.

Methods:

Mathematical model (please change it to "Methods" and consolidate as per suggestion )

Answer：We have revised “Mathematical model” into “Methods”. The revision can be seen in Page 4.

Unless there are particular aspects of the governing equations that have been changed in order to tailor the numerical scheme to your results, these are pretty standard and straight from the manual, what is the advantage of having them there?

Answer：The main purpose is to ensure the integrity of numerical simulation analysis.

Information about the numerical model such as mesh size etc are needed.

Answer：We have provided the information in Page 7 and in Figure 3.

Figure 2 c you can split the channel to show its cross section, i wonder if it would not be better to put the assembly together? 

Answer：We split the channel into three parts mainly to introduce the modeling process of each of them in detail.

Put the description of the experimental device back into the method section, also detail like "the water was pumped out of the tank ... etc" are not really needed. What is the accuracy of the electromagnetic flow meter?

Answer：The sentence has been deleted and the revision can be seen in Page 7. The accuracy of the electromagnetic flowmeter is 0.2%.

6.Figure 5 is a very important figure but it is really blurry, consider increasing its size.

Answer：The revision can be seen in Page 9 and Figure 5.

Model validation and results analysis:

1.What is not clear is how the vertical velocity was measured? did you plunge the device deeper into water etc?

Answer: Vertical velocity is the flow velocity along the water depth. The vertical velocity is measured along the direction of water depth with a propeller type velocimeter. The propeller type velocimeter is placed in water to measure flow velocity.

2.There is something missing here "The sections were selected, where were located at 0.5m away from the plate" ?

Answer: We have added necessary information in this part.

Can you please add the measured section in figure 5?

Answer：The revision can be seen in Page 9 and Figure 5.

Figure 6 missing axis is this measured from the centre?

Answer：The revision can be seen in Page 10 and Figure 6.

What is the error compared to other standard methodology in terms of flow rate measurement?

Answer：Compared with the calibration results of triangular weir, the relative error of plate flowmeter is less than 5%.

The explanation point on 4 about shock waves and bubbles is not rigorous. The shock wave form because of the Froude number generated by the presence of the flow past the obstacle (can't tell without Froude number), bubbles form because of air entrainment through the surface tanks to the turbulence generated on the free surface by the plate? See for example https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-9322(96)00049-3. It is possible to have cavitation at 0.54 m/s

Answer：The revision can be seen in Page 14-15.

 

We have adopted red fonts to highlight the revised parts of the manuscript, which will help the editors and reviewers to review the manuscript again.

We have already answered review comments put forward by the editors and reviewers one by one in detail, and improvements and modifications have been made in the corresponding positions of this manuscript. We hope that the editors and reviewers will review the revised manuscript again. Thanks again to the editors and reviewers for their valuable review comments. If there are still any deficiencies in this manuscript, please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address below, and we will actively cooperate with the editors and reviewers to promptly modify the deficiencies in the manuscript. We deeply appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we are looking forward to receiving comments from the editors and reviewers.

Thank you and best regards,

Yours sincerely,

Yongye Li

 

The first author:

Name: Yongye Li

E-mail: [email protected]

Phone: +8613934239832

Address: College of Water Resource Science and Engineering, Taiyuan University of Technology, No. 79, Yingze Street, Wanbailin District, Taiyuan 030024, PR China.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

General english must be improved

Introduction too long with respect of other sections

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers:

The serial number of this manuscript is water-622807, which is titled “Numerical simulation of the hydraulic characteristics in flow discharge measurement process with plate flowmeter in U-channel”. First of all, we are grateful for your valuable review comments on this manuscript. Your review comments precisely pointed out several deficiencies in this manuscript, which has profound guiding significance for further modifications and improvements of this manuscript and our future research work. We will give detailed answers to the above review comments proposed by the editors and reviewers one by one below.

General english must be improved

Answer：We have asked native speakers to check the English language of the whole paper.

Introduction too long with respect of other sections

Answer：We have shortened and revised the part of “Introduction”.

 

We have adopted red fonts to highlight the revised parts of the manuscript, which will help the editors and reviewers to review the manuscript again.

We have already answered review comments put forward by the editors and reviewers one by one in detail, and improvements and modifications have been made in the corresponding positions of this manuscript. We hope that the editors and reviewers will review the revised manuscript again. Thanks again to the editors and reviewers for their valuable review comments. If there are still any deficiencies in this manuscript, please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address below, and we will actively cooperate with the editors and reviewers to promptly modify the deficiencies in the manuscript. We deeply appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we are looking forward to receiving comments from the editors and reviewers.

Thank you and best regards,

Yours sincerely,

Yongye Li

 

 

The first author:

Name: Yongye Li

E-mail: [email protected]

Phone: +8613934239832

Address: College of Water Resource Science and Engineering, Taiyuan University of Technology, No. 79, Yingze Street, Wanbailin District, Taiyuan 030024, PR China.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I accept the paper in its current form. Thank you for considering my comments. Now the article looks much better. It will be more transparent to the reader.