Effect of the Area Contraction Ratio on the Hydraulic Characteristics of the Toothed Internal Energy Dissipaters
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is on what the authors call toothed internal energy dissipaters.
The paper is unclear, there are no physical explanations of the results or discussion of the implications.
I can not recommend to publish this paper.
Author Response
Dear professor,
Thank you very much for the valuable comments and about our paper.
After carefully studying the reviewer’s comments and your suggestions, we have made corresponding changes to the paper. Our response of the comments is enclosed.
If you need any other information, please contact me immediately by email. My email account is [email protected].
Sincerely yours,
Rui-xia Hao
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I see many aspects unclear in the paper.
First, I think the pourpose of the experiments has to be clarified; i.e.: the device is aimed to increase head losses - I normally use a valve, or a turbine if applicable. Why should I use this device?
Page 3 the Authors say they use an electromagnetic flow meter and then (line 106) a Doppler flow meter. What do they use? I can guess electromagnetic is for the discharge while Doppler for the velocity?
In the same page they are speaking about "pulsating" pressure (and velocity). This implies a temporal variation, but in the paper it is not explained why the flow changes during time. There is a subsequent paragraph (3.4) which refers about this, but it is not clear the frequency and how the velocity (and pressure) varies in time. Moreover, most parameters (e.g. flow coefficient) have been shown as a constant value, as I expect in steady flow. Is there any significant variation due to these "pulsations"?
There are two figures 4.
Lines 153-154: the Authors say the energy dissipation rate can be calculated if the head loss coefficient is known. Which seems quite obvious, but I did not understand which one we know.
Figure 4(bis) and figure 7 are quite similar: and that is quite obvious too, considering the main identity we have (in concept) between the efflux coefficent and the headloss. Do we actually need two figures?
Figures 9 (a and b) have to be explained. I think for X/D = 15 we are downstream, and therefore the pressure has the downstream value (atmosphere?) but the loss we have at the valve. Then, going upstream, it seems to remain constant, up to the inlet (X/D = 0, at the very beginning of the device) where we have a sudden drop, as if we had a (local) contraction. Why? It is not exactly what is to be expected.
I think the Authors should have the paper read by someone who does not know the experimental set up, in order to be alble to clarify the matter.
Author Response
Dear professor,
Thank you very much for the valuable comments and about our paper.
After carefully studying the reviewer’s comments and your advice, we have made corresponding changes to the paper. Our response of the comments is enclosed.
If you need any other information, please contact me immediately by email. My email account is [email protected].
Sincerely yours,
Rui-xia Hao
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
It is a good experimental work.
I will stress more the practical applicability of the experimental results obtained.
The authors present the results of the the research clearly, but it will be nice to have more explanations about the meaning of the results.
They don't have to be surprise when they are theoretically obvious and expected (i.e. the independency of flow coefficient from Reynolds number Figure 4).
I suggest to improve the description and the conclusion.
Author Response
Dear professor,
Thank you very much for the good comments and suggestions about our paper.
After carefully studying the reviewer’s comments and your advices, we have made corresponding changes to the paper. Our response of the comments is enclosed.
If you need any other information, please contact me immediately by email. My email account is [email protected].
Sincerely yours,
Rui-xia Hao
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been improved, but the Introduction should be further improved; I recommend to use sections of the response to me in the paper.
Some questions:
1) Do the piers extend all the way through the TIED (13.5cm)? If yes, what is the reason for this exact length?
2) What are the physical reasons for the height and angles of the piers chosen?
3) What do you mean by "intelligent" electromagnetic flow meter (page 3)?
4) Is the empirical formula in Eq. (4) the result of a (least-squares) fit?
Author Response
Dear professor,
Thank you for giving us so precious comments for the manuscript. We have studied your comments carefully. According to the detailed suggestions, we have made a careful revision on the paper.All revised portions are marked in red in the revised manuscript which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.
The questions, comment and corresponding responses can be summarized in attachment entitled "Response to review 1". If you need any other information about this paper, please contact me immediately by email. My email account is “haoruixia @tyut.edu.cn”.
Thank you very much for all your help once again and looking forward to hearing from you soon. I wish you have a good and healthy life.
Yours sincerely
Rui-xia Hao
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I think the Authors replied to my observations.
Author Response
Dear professor,
Thank you for give us positive comments on our revised manuscript entitled “Effect of the area contraction ratio on the hydraulic characteristics of the toothed internal energy dissipaters’’ (Manuscript ID: water-517746). Your last detailed comments help us to improve the quality of the paper both in English and in depth.
I express my gratitude to you once again and wish you have good and healthy life. Yours sincerely Rui-xia Hao
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
