Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

[1] Abstract should have one paragraph.

[2] Line76 "However, adding more hydrogen to a pipeline line results in a significant increase in overall transport safety risk. However, adding more hydrogen to a pipeline line results in a significant increase in overall transport safety risk."

Double check this sentence.

[3]Line 78 "In our case, the minimum mass flow rate was 1.03 kg/s."

our?

[4] Line92, "The initial parameters for different values of hydrogen and natural gas volume fraction were: 25/75%, mass flow: 269 kg/s, 383 kg/s and 449 kg/s, pipeline internal diameter 1000 mm; length 1000 km; pressure 8.4 MPa, temperature 300 K and velocity (10 94m/s)." and line 78, "In our case, the minimum mass flow rate was 1.03 kg/s.

-Detailed information can be provided in the methodology section unless essential in the introduction section. The introduction section should focus more on general information than detailed values for analysis.

[5]Line 101, "these equations of state parameters are the best equations for appropriate calculations of the thermodynamic parameters of the hydrogen-methane gas mixture under real gas behaviour conditions Pressure losses during the transport of methane-hydrogen mixture under conditions of real.."

-What is the reason they are 'the best'? Any support?

[6]Lien 118, "A buried pipeline reduces pressure drop and hence energy losses in the system, .."

-Why is that?

[7] The source where the equations are from should be clarified and cited. Also what the equations are with their meanings.

[8] Figure 2. It is unclear what arrow means and colours. The distance between dots are also unclear on its meaning.

[9] Simulation algorithm is unclear. Input and output variables are also unclear.

[10] 4 lines of the discussion section look undesirable.

[11] What is the new finding?

The manuscript should be proof read by a native English speaker

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you for your evaluation of the manuscript and the comments you gave on its improvement. All my responses are in the letter in the appendix.

Yours sincerely,
Vadym Fetisov

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for inviting me to review the manuscript below:

Manuscript ID: fire-2617043

Journal: Fire (ISSN 2571-6255)

Section: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Simulation of Combustion and Fire

Title: Technological aspects of methane-hydrogen mixture transportation through operating gas pipelines taking into account industrial and fire safety

 

This paper focuses on the technological aspects of methane-hydrogen mixture transportation through operating gas pipelines taking into account industrial and fire safety. The concept is interesting, but the article needs some major revisions. My comments can be found below.

1.      The abstract should be revised. Complex. In the abstract, striking sentences emphasizing the work should be added.

2.      The novelty/originality shall be further justified by highlighting that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge. The knowledge gap needs to be clearly addressed in the Introduction.

3.      At the end of the Introduction please add the paper structure.

4.      Please explain more information about the mathematical model. Please add the algorithm schematic representation.

5.       Please add a model validation procedure. This is missing.

6.      The results and discussion should be discussed more extensively by increasing the number of literature.

 

7.      In the text, there are errors in English, which need to be carefully read and corrected.

  In the text, there are errors in English, which need to be carefully read and corrected.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you for your evaluation of the manuscript and the comments you gave on its improvement. All my responses are in the letter in the appendix.

Yours sincerely,
Vadym Fetisov

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version of the manuscript looks better than the previous one. However, still there is ambiguousness on the way it was described. For example, equations used have not been addressed on their meaning, why they are used clearly stating input variables, and output variables. The algorithm figure as well is not stand alone with the input "date" and some more variables without their definitions. Those also contributed to unclarity of the novelty of the research. The previous comments made on that point have not been addressed properly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Your kind review and input for the publication of this manuscript is highly appreciated. Thanks a lot for the insightful and constructive review comments which is quite helpful to improve the quality of manuscript.

All aspects addressed have be improved as below (In case further revision is needed, please let me know and we will definitely make revisions accordingly).

Regards,

All Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for inviting me to review the manuscript below:

Journal Fire (ISSN 2571-6255)

Manuscript ID fire-2617043

Title: Technological aspects of methane-hydrogen mixture transportation through operating gas pipelines taking into account industrial and fire safety

 

This paper focuses on technological aspects of methane-hydrogen mixture transportation through operating gas pipelines taking into account industrial and fire safety. The concept is interesting, the methodology is well presented and all my comments are fulfilled. The paper is therefore suitable to be published in the Fire Journal. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Your kind review and input for the publication of this manuscript is highly appreciated. Thanks a lot for the insightful & constructive review comments which is quite helpful to improve the quality of manuscript.

All aspects addressed have be improved as below (In case further revision is needed, please let me know and we will definitely make revisions accordingly).

Regards,

All Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx