Experimental Study on Horizontal Pipeline Transportation Characteristics of Coarse Particle
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe scientific research article presents an intriguing exploration of its subject; however, it requires some adjustments to enhance its presentation and the clarity of the concepts discussed. To aid the authors in refining their manuscript, I have outlined several key areas where improvements could be made. These include enhancing the clarity of technical descriptions, improving the logical flow of arguments, and providing more detailed explanations of the methodologies and findings. This feedback aims to help the authors produce a more coherent and robust paper. Additionally, for ease of reference and to facilitate the revision process, these comments have been detailed in the attached PDF file. By addressing these suggestions, the authors can significantly improve the quality of their submission.
1 - I would suggest that the authors consider adopting a more engaging and intriguing title for their research. An appealing title not only captures the attention of potential readers but also conveys the essence and novelty of the study more effectively. It serves as a vital tool in drawing in a broader audience and enhancing the overall impact of the research.
2 - I advise the authors to emphasize more strongly the applications and implications of their research in the abstract. Highlighting these aspects can significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the practical relevance and potential impact of the study, thereby attracting a wider audience and facilitating greater engagement with the work. This approach not only underscores the importance of the research but also aids in positioning it within the broader field, illustrating its contributions and potential benefits.
3 - I recommend that the authors use more impactful keywords as these are crucial for indexing and making scientific articles searchable in major academic search engines. Selecting precise and relevant keywords enhances the visibility of the paper and ensures it reaches the appropriate academic audience. This practice is vital for improving the article's discoverability and can significantly influence its citation and readership by aligning it more closely with the research community's interests.
4 - I understand that the production team will handle this, but I would like to point out that there are some spacing issues occurring around the citations.
5 - In the introduction, from row 62 to row 63, where authors state "[...] complex concentration distribution calculation model [...]", regarding the concept of emergent complexity in modeling complex systems, as discussed in this sentence (and broaderly in the paper), to best contextualize (and not oversimplify) this concept within the scope of recent literature, the authors should cite the following work which specifically addresses the complexity of modeling artifacts to attempt to define the system's complexity. Citing this particular study would not only lend depth to the discussion but also connect the paper's contributions more firmly with existing research, demonstrating how the current work builds upon or diverges from established methodologies and theories and help situate it within the broader academic dialogue:
-Falegnami, A., Tomassi, A., Gunella, C., Amalfitano, S., Corbelli, G., Armonaite, K., Fornaro, C., Giorgi, L., Pollini, A., Caforio, A. and Romano, E., 2024. Defining conceptual artefacts to manage and design simplicities in complex adaptive systems. Heliyon, 10(24).
6 - I recommend that authors also emphasize the applications and implications of their research more strongly in the introductions. This approach can greatly enhance the reader's appreciation of the practical relevance and potential impact of the study from the outset
7 - To enhance the "Methodology" section of your paper, consider providing more detailed descriptions of the experimental setups and the specific rationale behind the chosen methods to improve clarity and reproducibility.
8 - The authors should clarify the inscriptions in Figures 1 through 6, as they are currently illegible. Enhancing the readability of these annotations will significantly aid readers in understanding the visual data presented in the study.
9 - The right inset of Figure 7 should also be made more legible, and it may be beneficial to divide the figure into parts labeled as Figure 7a, 7b, and 7c for clearer reference. Additionally, I recommend expanding the caption to provide a more detailed explanation of what the authors aim to demonstrate with this figure, ensuring it effectively communicates the relevance and findings depicted.
10 - I suggest that Table 1, which contains only five cells, may not be necessary. The authors might consider incorporating these values directly into the narrative of the text, which can streamline the presentation and keep the reader focused on the text without the need to refer to an additional table for brief details.
11 - For Figure 8, and indeed all figures where this issue persists, it would be advisable for the authors to enhance the legibility of all inscriptions. Making sure that these annotations are clear and readable is crucial for readers to fully understand the visual information being presented, which supports the overall clarity and impact of the research.
12 - For Figure 9, given the poor quality of the images, I recommend that they (whole) be entirely recreated to ensure clarity and professionalism
13 - The conclusions of the paper are currently insufficient. The authors should not only briefly recap the paper and its key take-home messages but also dedicate more comprehensive discussions to the applications and implications of their research, which were lacking at the beginning of the paper. Additionally, they should detail the limitations of their study and discuss potential future developments. This approach will provide a more rounded and insightful conclusion, enhancing the paper's impact and relevance in the field.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsExperimental Study on Horizontal Pipeline Transportation Characteristics of Coarse Particle
The Pipeline transportation of dredged material represents an effective way of move impressive mass of unconsolidated sediments at appreciable distances. The physical system is rather complex, which implying the interaction between transported particle, carrying fluid, pipe walls, all influenced by the grain size distribution of sediments and the fluid speed. Therefore any contribution to this complex system is welcomed.
Under these circumstances, the manuscript is meritorious.
Before making any recommendation concerning the acceptance of the manuscript, I would suggest more minor to moderate revisions as mentioned below.
One of them consists of including some references to the existing Computed Tomography studies of the multi-phase material transport through pipes.
The other ones referrer to the absence of any error bars in the biplots represented in Fig. 9 to 17.
More detailed Remarks
Abstract
Rows 15, 16 - Please detailed the particle beds.
Row 26 - “ flow rate of the mixture is advisable “ until ????
Introduction
Row 71 - Wou You, Zou YI please replace by You and Yi /Wou and Zou (family names only)
Row 75 – the same in the case of Zhang Peng
Methodology
Equation (1) please provide either a reference or an explication
Figure 1 to 5. Please replace with 600-1200 dpi images such as the lettering to be visible
It would be better if Fig. 1 to Fig. 5 were on the same page.
Figure 7 Please increase the size of the right picture. Also, include in the text a reference to this figure.
Experimental Preparation
Table 1 is too wide. Also, do not use decimals for the quartz density.
Row 255 Please provide more details on “CYYZ51A-H-12-A1-14-B-G flat membrane pressure transmitter“
Rows 259-260 Please include a valid URL
Row 267 Please include a valid URL
ROW 268 Please mode details on the SA-Z camera
Table 2 Idem
Results and Discussion
Figure 9d ? For more scientific rigour, please include error bars when necessary. Also, include more explanations.
Figure 10 Idem. Also explain the presence of horizontal black lines, most probable artefacts.
Figure 11 Idem
Figure 12 Idem
Figure 13 Idem
Figure 14 Idem
Figure 15 Idem
Figure 16 Idem
Figure 17 Idem
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe subject is interesting, important, and it is well presented in the paper. The introducton captures many historical account on this subject, however, I believe that many more reference papers would be available as this topic has been discussed for long time. Adding extra papers would enrich background and motivation.
The method is described well and many important components are stated clearly to help readers understand the project. One question I have is the length of the observation channel. I got confused with the total length. So, just clarify this length.
The callibration section is well described, but please include graphs of velocity profiles from the callibration process.
All graphs look very good. The discussions are helpful and easy to follow. However -- I think many of the legends used are way too small. Also, the size of the markers used in these graphs are also too small. They should be increased in the font size.
Most captions are done right, however, there are figures with inadequate captioning, such as Figure 10, 11, 12, and 17. The captions of other figures should be improved with better explanation.
Lastly, the sources listed in the reference look good, but the format is not well done. I noticed that that many papers are missing their journal names. Also, reference 1 should include the page number, or at least chapter number. I also think that the author names should not be capitalized.
Again, overall the paper is well done but all above should be addresed to improve the quality.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 106 Some typo errrors
Line 121 How is Qs (same volume flow rate) defined ?
Section 2.3 and Table 2: Which (average flow) velocities were considered in teh experiments ?
Line 306/307 Please add reference to flow type figures
Section 2.2 Please add figure homogeneous flow (refenced as figure 6 in text, but missing)
High speed camera are only for horizontal section ? What about vertical and perpendicular sections ?
Figures 9 -13 Please add definition of y
Comparison of velocity fields for same particle diameter and different flow velocities would be nice.
Please use different formula charcters for volume and velocity (Vs already used as solid volume)
Line 394-396 and ewquation 8. Flow rate (Q) or velocity ? Please define particulate flow rate (particle velocity is clear). Please define clean water flow rate.
How is the variance of the measure values (velocity profiles) with regard to repeatability of the experimental measurements ?
Line 513. “logarithmic distribution” Please use more appropriate term (with less fluid dynamics implications)
Line 518 typo Diameter 9 mm
Add comparison with data/results/correlation from the literature
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I am delighted to inform you that I have completed the review of your revised manuscript. The modifications made in response to the reviewers' feedback have clearly enhanced the clarity and depth of your work. Your dedication to addressing the comments and suggestions has not only refined the manuscript but also increased its academic significance.
Given the substantial improvements, I believe that the manuscript is now well-suited for publication. The revisions have effectively strengthened the arguments, improved data presentation, and refined the overall narrative, thereby reinforcing its scholarly contribution.
I sincerely appreciate your diligence and commitment to refining your work. I look forward to seeing your research published and contributing to ongoing discussions in your field.
Best regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for detailed explanations.
The manuscript is now OK
