Effects of Surge Tank Geometry on the Water Hammer Phenomenon: Numerical Investigation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents application of "Effects of Surge Tank Geometry on the Water Hammer Phenomenon: Numerical Investigation, which is interesting. The subject addressed is within the scope of the journal. However, the manuscript, in its present form, contains several weaknesses. Appropriate revisions to the following points should be undertaken in order to justify recommendation for publication.
1. Topic/area of research
The topic seems important in the area of Surge Tank Geometry and relevant to the present context. I would say that the author put reasonable effort in this direction. However, the study seems too general not very specific. There are many studies done in this particular area. Please clarifying the uniqueness of the study and add in text.
2. Introduction and review of literature
Comprehensive review of literature was given on the variables. However, different perspective studies, methodology or contradictory results of studies on the variables were missing. Studies on different perspective on the variables could be added in the text for reducing biasness.
For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges, and your original achievements to overcome them, in a clearer way in abstract and introduction.
It is mentioned in p.1 that the MOC model is adopted in this study. What are other feasible alternatives? What are the advantages of adopting this particular model over others in this case? How will this affect the results? The authors should provide more details on this.
What is your method(s)?
What is your analysis method(s)? evaluation criteria? …
Did not you have any results such as figure, Table, …?
Some key parameters are not mentioned. The rationale on the choice of the particular set of parameters should be explained with more details. Have the authors experimented with other sets of values? What are the sensitivities of these parameters on the results?
Some assumptions are stated in various sections. Justifications should be provided on these assumptions. Evaluation on how they will affect the results should be made.
The discussion section in the present form is relatively weak and should be strengthened with more details and justifications.
Moreover, the manuscript could be substantially improved by relying and citing more on recent literatures about studies of hydraulic structures such as the followings:
Saber Chenari et al., 2014. Improved adaptive genetic algorithm and its application in short-term optimal operation of water resources system. Research Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Management, 3(4), pp. 209-217.
Hosseini et al., 2018. Comparison of hybrid regression and multivariate regression in the regional flood frequency analysis: A case study in Khorasan Razavi province. Environmental Health Engineering and Management Journal, 5(2), 93-100.
In the conclusion section, the limitations of this study, suggested improvements of this work and future directions should be highlighted.
Author Response
Please find attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In the study, the performance of surge tank, installed on the pipeline of Jiroft Dam powerhouse, is studied to reduce the repercussion of water hammer phenomenon. The article is generally well written. The number of previous studies in the introduction section should be increased. The discussion section can be expanded a little more. English should be revised. There are a few minor typos. After these corrections it can be accepted.
Author Response
Please find attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I have a big concerns about the current version of the manuscript, which is only 9 pages in total without any figures or tables. This makes my reviewing difficulty to judge the manuscript.
1) There is no actual model validation although there is section “Model Validation”. The authors should compare the results against the available numerical results and give error in percentage.
2) What are the advantages of the described model. As it is a conventional model for water hammer, the authors should focus on and clearly explain about what new results/understanding are obtained with the described model.
3) In introduction, the authors should comment on these methods (Lines 72 - 73) in terms of capability and accuracy.
4) Line 100 on Page 3: give the reason to choose plus/minus 20%.
5) Although Eq. (1) is standard but a reference should be given for a benefit to a reader.
6) There are many English typos such as: (1) L, & R should be subscripts on Line 132; (2) change “Where” to “where” on Line 159; (3) one space between Fig. and 6 is needed on Line 164; (4) change “maximum” to “Maximum” on Line 200; and (5) “similarity” should be “similarly” on Line 262. The authors should carefully check for similar issues throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
Please find attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Revisions have not been completed.
Author Response
please find attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I am overall happy with the revision and like to recommend its publication although the manuscript might further be benefited from a proofreading.
Author Response
please find attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors resubmitted a thoroughly crafted revision.
Author Response
We had already made the sufficient changes on our manuscript.
