Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have corrected the quality of paper according my remarks.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his/her valuable comments. In particular, we are pleased that the reviewer feels that “The authors have corrected the quality of paper according my remarks”. Thanks to the reviewer for his/her help and affirmation of our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Results should be presented in more clear way and be supported by the results.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his/her valuable comments. We have carefully considered the reviewer’s comments and revised our manuscript accordingly. The detailed responses are as follows.

For the remark of the third Reviewer: Results should be presented in more clear way and be supported by the results.

Response: Thanks for the comment. We have modified results and discussion part of our manuscript in a cleaner way. This manuscript presents the turbulent mixing characteristics study in a T-junction system, which is verified by the experiments. Our results could be of great practical significance for designing the turbulent system in pipelines. See Line 336-348 of the revised manuscript for details.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The present version of the MS is improved in comparison to the previous one. For instance the quality of figures is now acceptable. However, I’m still not convinced that the quality of this MS is enough to warrant its publication in Applied Sciences journal.

There are some issues that have still to be solved. Specifically:

• The English language is still unfinished, but this point could be solved during the proofreading process;
• Some keywords are not effective. In particular, “Fluent” appears as an adjective rather than a technical term and “Dimensional analysis” is scarcely representative of the peculiarities of this manuscript;

But the main issue remains Equation (15) on the effective mixing length. This equation is provided in dimensional form and, in my opinion, is unacceptable for the practice, though the Authors in the section “Conclusions” claim, “…the specific equation derived has broad engineering significances for tracking the origin of sewage in pipelines”. I would insist, the Authors should improve Equation (15) definitely, by providing a dimensionless relationship in harmony with the dimensional analysis developed in section 4.2.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 

I accept the revised form of the manuscript.

Author Response

We thank you for your valuable comments. In particular, we are pleased that you feel that “I accept the revised form of the manuscript”. Thanks to you for your help and affirmation of our work again.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors addressed all my concerns satisfactorily and I find the manuscript is now improved definitively. In particular, I have appreciated the proposal of the new equation in terms of dimensionless variables.

I have only the following comment:

At line 314. It reads "Taking logarithm of both sides of Equation (12) can be transformed into the following form", but this statement is incorrect and I would correct it as "Equation (12) can be transformed into the following form", by removing "Taking logarithm of both sides of". 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. We are pleased that you feel that "The Authors addressed all my concerns satisfactorily and I find the manuscript is now improved definitively". Thank you for your constant help again. Combined with your new comments, we have further revised the manuscript.

For the remark of the Reviewer: At line 314. It reads "Taking logarithm of both sides of Equation (12) can be transformed into the following form", but this statement is incorrect and I would correct it as "Equation (12) can be transformed into the following form", by removing "Taking logarithm of both sides of".

For the remark of the Reviewer: Thanks for the suggestion. We have made the changes accordingly. See Line 312 of the revised manuscript for details.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Some mistakes were noticed in the manuscript - link to the table No 1. should be in line No. 120 there it mentioned, but not in line No.115. Line with No.123 - the turbulent intensity marked with very big I letter. In Line No.137 is shown not only schematic diagram of experimental setup, but and experimental equipment, maybe is it possible to change the name of Figure. No.3? References No.23 in line No.314 should be written 2007, 507-512.

 

Comparison between experimental data and simulation results of turbulent mixing characteristics in a T-junction system was shown in the manuscript. Impact of 4 variables (main pipe diameter φ, cross-flow flux Q, mixing ratio δ,
the incident angle of T-junctions θ) were considered for investigations of the turbulent mixing characteristics in pipelines. The relationship between the main pipe diameter and effective mixing length was suggested for the practical applications, so paper is interesting not only from scientific, but from practical side of application too.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript concerns issue of numerical and experimental study of turbulent mixing characteristics in a T-junction system. The clarification of the turbulent mixing characteristics in pipelines is critical for finding the source of pollution timely and inspecting pipelines for damage. In this paper, numerical simulations and experiments were conducted to investigate the turbulent mixing characteristics in pipelines. Please check the resolution of Figures, they should be of a good quality, eg. Line 168. Figure 5. Relationship of electrical conductivity, concentrations and the volume fraction of salt solution. Line 252. Figure 11. Contours of the distribution of salt solution (a) and water velocity (b). How in practice the results of the presented synthesis can be used? This should be discussed in the point concerning conlusion of the presented work.