Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this work, siphonic roof drainage, discharging rainwater from rooftops, are analysed experimentally and via software under fully primed conditions. To this end, a scaled model is proposed, the results of which are compared with numerical outcomes of Epanet software. Another company vendor software is used for validation.

The manuscript needs substantial revision, the message is not clearly delivered to the reader. English has to be revised. Typos (e.g., oof, form this elevated tank, etc.) need to be corrected. The abstract lacks results with key concrete values supporting the comparison being carried out. The literature is comprehensive and up to date. A more recent report by May “Design criteria for siphonic roof drainage systems”, SR654 could be taken for reference.

Figure 1: improve resolution and make it bigger, moving down the legend.

Eq. 5. To evaluate hydraulic slope J_d, proper accuracy on pressures P_M4 and P_M5 need to be attained. Please give specifications.

LINE 233. Already said the C_E is is the emitter discharge coefficient.

LINE 293. The sentence “In this study, where velocity head is as important as static pressure, real static pressure is calculated by discounting velocity head from the EPANET pressure result.” is not clear, please rephrase.

The analysis should be repeated for some discharge values, let’s say a minimum, a maximum and a reference value, to generalise results and prove that errors (in Table 4) are small enough.

No mention about the similitude law between prototype and model.

see my comments

Author Response

Reply to reviewer 1 can be found on the attached PDF file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper ‘Analysis of siphonic roof drainage systems with EPANET’ provides an interesting and innovative study. I do not have any major revisions for the paper, so my recommendation was for 'Accept after minor revision'.

 

Additional comments

 1) It is not recommended to use keywords that are in the title (line 19).

 2) I suggest presenting results and discussion together (a single topic with subtopics). As of today, the discussion is not well presented (lines 236 to 352).

 3) In the Results and Discussion section there is no citation of other papers. It is important to compare and discuss with other studies already developed in this line of research.

 4) In the conclusion section the text of lines 354 to 357 and 364 to 378 is not necessary.

Author Response

Reply to reviewer 2 can be found on the attached PDF file. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript based on the comments provided. Therefore it is recommended to accept the paper.