Next Article in Journal
Effect of the Presence of Virus-like Particles on Bacterial Growth in Sunlit Surface and Dark Deep Ocean Environments in the Southern East China Sea
Previous Article in Journal
An Assessment of Hydroacoustic and Electric Fishing Data to Evaluate Long Term Spatial and Temporal Fish Population Change in the River Thames, UK
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Transient Process of Pumped Storage System Coupling Gas–Liquid Interface: Novel Mathematical Model and Experimental Verification

Water 2021, 13(20), 2933; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13202933
by Chengpeng Liu 1, Tao Peng 2, Jiebin Yang 1, Zhigao Zhao 1 and Jiandong Yang 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2021, 13(20), 2933; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13202933
Submission received: 23 September 2021 / Revised: 16 October 2021 / Accepted: 17 October 2021 / Published: 19 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Hydrogeology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please, see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your elaborate and constructive comments to our paper. After reading and learning your comments carefully, we have made many modifications and improvements to the previous manuscript. To explain the problems clearly, we present the detailed responses to all your comments in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the work behind this article.

I kindly ask the authors to clarify/check the following aspects:

  1. The article needs a technical English review, as some phrases seem confusing to me. For example, see:

row 10: “transition process” refers to transients?

row 17: ” the proposed model are applied…”

row 168: ” considering water body and the elasticity of pipe wall…” I think you mean both water and pipe wall elasticity.

row 548: ” When the unit reject it load…”

  1. I don’t agree with the “=” sign put in non-mathematical equalities. For instance: “B=wave velocity”. Please review all the nomenclature explanation in the article.
  2. There are no unit measures attached to the amounts used in equations. Only for the default parameters is given the measure unit.
  3. Does the diagram in Figure 1 belong to the authors? It is about the Preissmann implicit method.
  4. Row 175: is true for a constant sectional area, no matter the shape.
  5. Please check the statements in rows 236-239 and put them in accordance with the Figure 4. Check the index as well.
  6. The average relative error of 7.2% refers to what parameter? And how was it calculated?
  7. In the Conclusion section there are references to some positively, respectively negative  correlated amounts. Are these conclusions supported by some correlation coefficients previously calculated?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your elaborate and constructive comments to our paper. After reading and learning your comments carefully, we have made many modifications and improvements to the previous manuscript. To explain the problems clearly, we present the detailed responses to all your comments in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All the questions raised have been correctly addressed.

The paper is suitable for pubication.

Back to TopTop