Next Article in Journal
A New Look at Storm Separation Technique in Estimation of Probable Maximum Precipitation in Mountainous Areas
Next Article in Special Issue
Analysis of a Large Maintenance Journal of the Sewer Networks of Three Apulian Provinces in Southern Italy
Previous Article in Journal
Application of Random Forest and ICON Models Combined with Weather Forecasts to Predict Soil Temperature and Water Content in a Greenhouse
Previous Article in Special Issue
Toward a Sustainable Decentralized Water Supply: Review of Adsorption Desorption Desalination (ADD) and Current Technologies: Saudi Arabia (SA) as a Case Study
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Performance Prediction Model for Pumps as Turbines (PATs)

Water 2020, 12(4), 1175; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12041175
by Stefania Fontanella 1,*, Oreste Fecarotta 2, Bruno Molino 3, Luca Cozzolino 1 and Renata Della Morte 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Water 2020, 12(4), 1175; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12041175
Submission received: 29 February 2020 / Revised: 31 March 2020 / Accepted: 15 April 2020 / Published: 20 April 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

see attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article provides a novel prediction model of PAT performance characteristics (best efficiency point, characteristic curves) obtained by post-processing of data collected in a new richer database. As also stated by the authors, these results are useful at least in preliminary design stages of a new energy recovery system based on PAT technology.

The article is generally well written. The text could be rechecked once again in order to remove the eventual remaining grammar errors (preferable by an English native speaker).

Complementary remarks:

Line 21: “this obliges the users to” instead of “this obliges the users obliges”.

Lines 46: “shorter than that of corresponding” instead of “shorter than that corresponding”.

Lines 50-51: this part of phrase must be completed “for example bypassing part of the 50 flow rate if the PAT’s…”.

Line 155: the word “point” is not necessary anymore (already contained in “BEP”).

Line 157: “reverse-mode” instead of “reverse-node”.

Section 4.3: the authors are asked to specify how they defined the errors to compare the different models.

Redawn database: is this database public? Could it be later completed by other academics (or even pump manufacturers) with available data from their specific projects in order to constantly improve the prediction models?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper present interesting and important topic. The missing of real data and experience by PATs brought authors to try with statistical methods and the databank preparation.

The publication clear and transparently presents the results. 

Two general remarks:

  1. Will be nice to see a comparison with standard Francis turbines as pumps.
  2. The paper is concentrated on BEP (Best efficiency point) and will be nice to see how the pumps perform in other turbine modes. Could same correlations been used in such cases?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Basically, the authors made major changes to the revised manuscript, taking into account my suggestions and comments. Now I can recommend the current manuscript for publication in the Water journal.

Back to TopTop