An Equivalent Pipe Network Modeling Approach for Characterizing Fluid Flow through Three-Dimensional Fracture Networks: Verification and Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Delete lines 149 - 154
2. More precisely define the various quantities (especially these marked by H).   Is it possible to add one sentence in the conclusions : is in real rocks the fracture system for which Your model will be the best?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Recommendations / suggestions

1. Line 12: write “three-dimensional discrete fracture network (DFN) model instead of „ three-dimensional DFN model “
2. Figure 1 should be placed after the text in which it is mentioned, ie after 2.1. Generation of 3 D DFN models
3. Figure 3 should be placed after the text in which it is mentioned, ie after 3.1. Validation of the simple EPN models
4. Sentences in lines 149-154 are unnecessary and should be deleted.
5. The symbol for permeability should be lowercase (k), not uppercase (K).
6. I suggest adding a list of symbols at the end of the text with the meanings and units in which they are included in the equations.
7. Check and, if necessary, correct the unit for Cij-called the equivalent conductivity of the pipe in equations (5), and later the hydraulic conductivity of each pipe in equations (13), (14), (28) - (31). Is the unit m∙s^-1 or m²∙s^-1.
8. According to equation (18) the unit for C₁₂ must be m²∙s^-1 for Q₁₂ to be in m³∙s^-1.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The authors should address all the comments in the attached pdf file.
2. I did not find the importance and implications of this research? why the authors have conducted this research? Narrate the problem first.
3. Revise some figures. Follow the comments in the attached file.
4. Lines 149-154: What is the meaning of these lines? Rectify these mistakes.
5. Writing the reference style is vague in the introduction section. The authors should add the reference at the end of each sentence. The authors can start the sentence by saying “The recent studies ---- OR --- The authors described etc.”
6. The authors should add the discussion section.
7. Many studies have been conducted using the equivalent pipe network (EPN) models and discrete fracture network (DFN) models. Is it a comparative enough that deals with the disparity of the two methods? It it is, then mention it clearly in the abstract and conclusions.
8. Conclusions section: The authors have stated that “With increasing u from 3 m to 13 m, in which u denotes the mean value of fracture lengths 459 that follow the exponential distribution, the K increases exponentially by approximately 460 two orders of magnitude. This is because the larger u leads to the larger number of long 461 fractures in 3D DFN models that significantly enhances the density (P32) and intersection 462 length (Li).” It is already understood that if you will increase the value of u, then you can extract more faults or fractures and density will be increased. It is already mentioned in the literature. Clarify the novelty factors in the study.
9. There are some claims in the study without proper latest references. Add the suggested references.
10. Conclusions should be concise and bullet points are encouraged.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have adequately addressed all my queries. The revised manuscript is an improved version and is acceptable for publication.
Authors can rectify Reference no 49 during proofreading and should add the author's names.