Methodological Proposal for the Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs
, Carlos Díaz-Delgado 3, Humberto Salinas-Tapia 3, Jorge Flores-Velázquez 4 and Carlos Bautista Capetillo 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It may be good for paper to represent the criterion on the aeration conditions when turbulent flow always occur.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for their comments. Care has been taken to improve the work as suggested. The following paragraph was included in the section “Discussion of nappe aeration conditions” (pg. 27).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled Methodological proposal for the hydraulic design of labyrinth weirs is numerical study of the hydraulic design of labyrinth weirs. I commented as follows;
1.All figures are low resolutions. The author should revise them.
2.Dimensionless number is very important (especially, Reynolds number).
3.Introduction and conclusions are not clear. The authour should revise them. Disadvantages of the previous studies and advantages of the present study are important.
4.The numerical results and discussions should be separated. Moreover, validity of the present study should be shown. The numerical results should be compared with the experimental results.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the Reviewer 2 for their comments. Care has been taken to improve the work and address their concerns as per the specific comments in the attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper needs major revisions:
1-Why did authors consider Eq.(21) as the polynomial regression?? this issue should be clarified.
2-Eqs.(22-27) need re-formulations. "*" is not suitable symble. These formulations need more robust descriptions.
3-Anova should be presented in the results and discussion as seen in "Role of dissipation chamber in energy loss of vortex structures: Experimental evaluation" and "Air entrainment mechanism in the vortex structure: Experimental study".
Author Response
The reviewer makes good points that were analyzed by the authors and answered in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revisions are satisfied.
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept
