High-Temperature and Pressure Downhole Safety Valve Performance Envelope Curve Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Point 1: The style of the references are not according to the journal format. Please correct it.
Point 2: The authors did not validate their research work with literature (experimental/ benchmark simulations)? Please validate it.
Point 3: Please provide the basic control equations and solution methods.
Point 4: More details on the MTS mechanical testing machine and data acquisition system are to be provided.
Point 5: The paper is to be checked for misprints and grammatical mistakes.
Point 6: More in-depth and comprehensive literature review is to be provided.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1:
Thanks to the reviewers for their evaluation of our work. We will work harder with the very good suggestions you give in this manuscript.
Comment 1: The style of the references are not according to the journal format. Please correct it.
Reply 1: We gratefully appreciate your comment. We have revised the manuscript according to the journal format.
Comment 2: The authors did not validate their research work with literature (experimental/ benchmark simulations)? Please validate it.
Reply 2: We gratefully appreciate your comment. We verify our research by citing relevant literatures. We apologize if this is not clearly expressed in the manuscript. In order to ensure the validity of our research, we conducted a comprehensive literature review before conducting the research. By using the existing literature, we aim to provide new contributions to this field on the basis of drawing on the knowledge and insights of previous studies. We believe that our research work is well-founded and validated, and the conclusions are strictly drawn through relevant literature. However, we will carefully review our manuscripts to ensure that the verification is clearly communicated in the text. Thank you again for raising this problem. We will solve this problem accordingly in the revised manuscript.
Comment 3: Please provide the basic control equations and solution methods.
Reply 3: We gratefully appreciate your comment. You mentioned the basic governing equations and the requirements for solving them. We are very sorry that these contents were not mentioned in our research. Considering your suggestion, we realize that our research may lack a detailed description of the basic governing equations and solutions. Although our research does not directly use these basic equations and, we understand that these elements are an important basis for understanding and evaluating our work. In response to your request, we have made additional explanations in paragraph 13 of chapter 3, section 3.2 of the revised manuscript, which will help readers better understand.
Comment 4: More details on the MTS mechanical testing machine and data acquisition system are to be provided.
Reply 4: We gratefully appreciate your comment. We have revised the manuscript and added more details on the MTS mechanical testing machine and data acquisition system.
Comment 5: The paper is to be checked for misprints and grammatical mistakes.
Reply 5: We gratefully appreciate your comment. We have revised the manuscript and checked for misprints and grammatical mistakes.
Comment 6: More in-depth and comprehensive literature review is to be provided.
Reply 6: We gratefully appreciate your comment. We have revised the manuscript and provided more in-depth and comprehensive literature review.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The review addresses important topic of the method of drawing the performance envelope curve of high temperature and pressure downhole safety valve downhole safety valve. Authors have used the numerical simulation method to simulate the performance of downhole safety valve, particularly, failure threshold stress value of the key components and performance envelope curve of the downhole safety valve. The study provides theoretical and methodological support for the study of the performance envelope curves of downhole safety valves, packers, and other complex working conditions of downhole tools and their application in the field. The manuscript is well written. It can be considered for acceptance with minor revision.
Minor comments:
1. Please include the full form of TRSV in the figure 1, either in legend or citation inside the text
2. Its is observed that figure 6 a) and figure 6 b) for tensile load and compression are similar to each other. Authors are requested include explanation for this.
3. Authors should include references for page 1 line 27
4. Include the full form of FMECA in section 2.2. b)
5. Authors are requested to use guidelines for numbering the different sections in the manuscript
6. Figures and table must be justified uniformly in the manuscript across all sections
7. Citation has been done wrongly throughout the text. please see authors guidelines for citation
8. Manuscript language should be improved across sections page 1 line 44, page 14 line 341
9. Authors are requested to consider author guidelines for formatting references
10. conclusions should not be numbered instead divide them into different paragraphs
11. through the text kN is mentioned as KN, authors are requested to use system of units across the text as mentioned in author guidelines
12. Reformat the table 3 as per guidelines, mention the meaning of symbol “/” in the table notes
13. All the figures should have legends under them. Please correct figure 11
The review addresses important topic of the method of drawing the performance envelope curve of high temperature and pressure downhole safety valve downhole safety valve. Authors have used the numerical simulation method to simulate the performance of downhole safety valve, particularly, failure threshold stress value of the key components and performance envelope curve of the downhole safety valve. The study provides theoretical and methodological support for the study of the performance envelope curves of downhole safety valves, packers, and other complex working conditions of downhole tools and their application in the field. The manuscript is well written. It can be considered for acceptance with minor revision.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2:
Thanks to the reviewers for their evaluation of our work. We will work harder with the very good suggestions you give in this manuscript.
Comment 1: Please include the full form of TRSV in the figure 1, either in legend or citation inside the text
Reply 1: We gratefully appreciate your comment. We have revised the manuscript and given the full form of TRSV in the second paragraph of section 2.1 of chapter 2 in the text.
Comment 2: Its is observed that figure 6 a) and figure 6 b) for tensile load and compression are similar to each other. Authors are requested include explanation for this
Reply 2: We gratefully appreciate your comment. Because the yield strength of threads of downhole safety valve is less than that of downhole safety valve body, the simulation of downhole safety valve adopts tension and pressure resistance of threads. Therefore, figure 6 a) and figure 6 b) for tensile load and compression are similar to each other. We are sorry for our expression and explain it in the manuscript. We have made modifications to figure 6 a) and figure 6 b) to make it easier for readers to understand.
Comment 3: Authors should include references for page 1 line 27
Reply 3: Thank the reviewer for pointing out the problem. We have revised the manuscript references for page 1 line 27 and similar places in the full text are modified and checked.
Comment 4: Include the full form of FMECA in section 2.2. b)
Reply 4: Thank the reviewer for pointing out the problem. We have revised the manuscript and given the full form of FMECA in section 2.2. b).
Comment 5: Authors are requested to use guidelines for numbering the different sections in the manuscript
Reply 5: We gratefully appreciate your comment. We have revised the manuscript and used guidelines for numbering the different sections in the manuscript
Comment 6: Figures and table must be justified uniformly in the manuscript across all sections
Reply 6: Thank the reviewer for pointing out the problem. We have revised the manuscript and justified uniformly the figures and table in the manuscript across all sections.
Comment 7: Citation has been done wrongly throughout the text. please see authors guidelines for citation
Reply 7: Thank the reviewer for pointing out the problem. We have revised the citation throughout the text.
Comment 8: Manuscript language should be improved across sections page 1 line 44, page 14 line 341
Reply 8: Thank the reviewer for pointing out the problem. We have revised improved manuscript language across sections page 1 line 44, page 14 line 34. And we have been carefully revised and checked in the full text.
Comment 9: Authors are requested to consider author guidelines for formatting references
Reply 9: Thank the reviewer for pointing out the problem. we have revised the manuscript and considered author guidelines for formatting references.
Comment 10: conclusions should not be numbered instead divide them into different paragraphs
Reply 10: Thank the reviewer for pointing out the problem. we have divided the conclusion into different paragraphs and carefully checked the manuscript.
Comment 11: through the text kN is mentioned as KN, authors are requested to use system of units across the text as mentioned in author guidelines
Reply 11: Thank the reviewer for pointing out the problem. we have revised the manuscript and used system of units across the text as mentioned in author guidelines.
Comment 12: Reformat the table 3 as per guidelines, mention the meaning of symbol “/” in the table notes
Reply 12: Thank the reviewer for pointing out the problem. We have revised the manuscript and made supplementary explanations. The meaning of symbol “/”is no such combined load form.
Comment 13: All the figures should have legends under them. Please correct figure 11
Reply 13: Thank the reviewer for pointing out the problem. We have revised the manuscript and have legend all the figures under them.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The author(s) have studied High temperature and pressure downhole safety valve performance envelope curve study
The current paper contains new information in the existing literature and is interesting. I can support its publication, however I advise considerable revisions before it is published.
1. Abstract should be revised highlighting the importance the mechanical properties. I find it missing in the abstract.
2. Include more literature for introduction to downhole safety valve
3. Emphasize the importance of using Full-size 3D solid modeling in finite element analysis.
4. The entire document needs to have its grammatical and typographical errors fixed. Authors ought to edit it.
5. Write the conclusion more precise., It should highlight the novel finding in the current study. Current conclusion is very lengthy.
The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revision. The author needs to provide a point by point response or provide a rebuttal
Minor editing is required
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3:
Thanks to the reviewers for their evaluation of our work. We will work harder with the very good suggestions you give in this manuscript.
Comment 1: Abstract should be revised highlighting the importance the mechanical properties. I find it missing in the abstract.
Reply 1: Thank the reviewer for pointing out the problem. We have revised the abstract to highlight the importance the mechanical properties.
Comment 2: Include more literature for introduction to downhole safety valve
Reply 2: Thank the reviewer for pointing out the problem. We have revised and increased more literature for introduction to downhole safety valve.
Comment 3: Emphasize the importance of using full-size 3D solid modeling in finite element analysis.
Reply 3: Thank you for highlighting the importance of using full-size 3D solid modeling in finite element analysis. We completely agree with your suggestion and recognize the benefits it offers. Using full-size 3D solid modeling allows for a more accurate representation of the physical structure, enabling better simulation and analysis of complex engineering problems. It provides a comprehensive understanding of the behavior of the system under different loading conditions, ensuring reliable results and precise predictions. Additionally, full-size 3D solid modeling facilitates effective visualization and communication of the analysis findings to stakeholders, promoting better decision-making in engineering design and optimization processes. We will ensure that our manuscript emphasizes the significance of employing this approach in finite element analysis. We provide a supplementary explanation in the sixth paragraph of Section 3.1 in Chapter 3 of this manuscript.
Comment 4: The entire document needs to have its grammatical and typographical errors fixed. Authors ought to edit it.
Reply 4: Thank the reviewer for pointing out the problem. We have revised and checked the manuscript.
Comment 5: Write the conclusion more precise., It should highlight the novel finding in the current study. Current conclusion is very lengthy.
Reply 5: Thank the reviewer for pointing out the problem. We have revised the conclusion.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
