Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the paper contains a number of interesting points, it cannot be published before a major review.

There are 5 big issues with the paper: see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thanks for reviewing our manuscript and provide constructive comments to improve this paper. Please find the following attachment for the reply addressing the comments. 

Have a nice day!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Derivation of Engineering Design Criteria for Flow Field Around Intake Structure: A Numerical Simulation Study” focus on numerical study related to design optimization of a velocity cap of intake structures to reduce the marine life impingement. In general the paper is interesting and the numerical methodology is correct and adequate to the discussed problem. The achieved results can help in the design optimization and can be helpful for engineers. The paper can be published after some minor corrections listed below.

 

1.

I would strongly recommend to use SI units too in the introduction (and other parts of the paper).

 

2.

There is some problem with the equations' font size, some equations are large and some are small, it is recommended to keep the same size of the font in the whole article.

 

3.

Figure 10

There is some notation problem with the equation shown on the plot, it suggests linear function, but there is no linear function plotted.

 

4.

Authors’ write that :

 

Velocity measurements were adopted for model validation. The measurements, covering both high and low tides, were captured by three Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCP1, ADCP2 and ADCP3). ADCP1, ADCP2 and ADCP3 were respectively located at 0.5m, 2m and 1m from the velocity cap as illustrated in Figure 6.

 

But it is not clear if the experimental measurements were performed by the authors or taken from literature.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thanks for reviewing our manuscript and provide constructive comments to improve this paper. Please find the following attachment for the reply addressing the comments. 

Have a nice day!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised paper is much better (small effort should be necessary to accept it), but there are still 2 very important issues that prevent publication as is.

Main concerns:

1. It cannot be accepted that you suggest a formula like Hcv=2.49 Vpipe^1.08 or lvc=Vpipe^1.23 because they are dimensionally not homogeneous. Whereas Eq 6 is correct: Vpipe=Q/Apipe. Then, let’s make an example: An intake with Q=50m^3/s, A=25m^2. Eq 6 gives Vpipe = 2 m/s, that is correct. How can you suggest that Hcv=2.49 Vpipe^1.08=5.2 [m^1.08/s^1.08]? How long is a meter per second raised to the power of 1.08? In research all equations must be dimensional, and Hvc must become in meters. I know in old practical equations this was accepted, assuming that dimensions were implicit (in this case I believe 5.2 m), but this is no longer the case. No such equation is possible. Therefore, you need to write something like:  (Hvc/Hvo)= 2.49 (Vpipe/Vo)^1.08
2. It is not clear what you suggest! It looks like you suggest that two intakes with Q=6 m^3/s and or Q=60 m^3/s both designed with Vpipe=2m/s have the same Hvc and lvc? Do you mean this? And what about a small plant with Q=0.1 m/s, with Vpipe=2m/s?

Minor comments:

3. Explain why tide has a period of 6 h (usually, tides have a period of 12 or 24 h)
4. In comment 4b, you seem to think that a structure that stays in a water depth of 4.8 m does not feel the wave force. Instead, this happens only if you are at a water depth lower than L/2. But no, it is extremely unfeasible that the waves are so short. Note that a wave of just 4 s has a wavelength of 25 m: which is the period of the longer waves you have?

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment. thanks. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has improved very much and can be accepted for publication in the present form