Numerical Analysis of Flow-Induced Vibration of Deep-Hole Plane Steel Gate in Partial Opening Operation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- The paragraph between 43-85 lines is much extensive, I suggest to break in 2 or 3 paragraphs.
- Why is the author's choice (in line 310) 50 seconds? In the text not exist any kind of explication about it.
- In Figure 5 I suggest including a legend.
- In line 403, the deformation é 2.75mmm, however, in Figure 8 was put d = 2.74mm, I suggest correcting it.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review, here is my response.
Point 1: The paragraph between 43-85 lines is much extensive, I suggest to break in 2 or 3 paragraphs.
Response 1: I have broken the paragraph into two at line 60.
Point 2: Why is the author's choice (in line 310) 50 seconds? In the text not exist any kind of explication about it.
Response 2: At 50s, the hydrodynamic pressure of each part has been in a stable state for more than 30s, and for the sake of calculation efficiency, 50s is selected as the calculation time.
Point 3: In Figure 5 I suggest including a legend.
Response 3: I have added legend.
Point 4: In line 403, the deformation é 2.75mmm, however, in Figure 8 was put d = 2.74mm, I suggest correcting it.
Response 4: I have made changes in the paper.
I will add the revised paper to the attachment, thank you very much for your valuable comments, I wish you all the best.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Line 13: rearrange this big sentence and break it into parts where the objectives on this work are clearly stated, with proper grammar.
There is a very frequent use of semicolons (;). It’s suggested that the authors instead break the sentence and start a new one, in hope to increase the readability of this manuscript.
The authors have a chance to increase the uptake of the manuscript results from other research groups and be cited more if effort is made to focus the presentation of the outcomes of this research in a generalised fashion (for example Lines 25-26 and in the results and discussion and conclusion sections, the results can be also mentioned in terms of percentage or relative change). It will be nice to see an added emphasis on the practical implications of this study: how do the authors see engineers applying these results in a real world scenario?
There needs be consideration for proper use of grammar and structuring the sentences, throughout the text.
For example see lines 55-57: “Due to the model test is difficult and costly due to the similarity of the material, structure, geometry, physics and mechanics of the model, the model test cannot meet the analysis accuracy requirements well. “
There are a number of issues in addition to grammar, such as perhaps the authors referring to physical model tests (needs be mentioned for clarity and distinction to numerical testing). It could be edited to: “Physical model testing is difficult and costly to design and perform, due to limitations around the similarity of the material, structure, geometry, physics and mechanics of the scaled physical model. Thus physical models are not preferable as their analysis cannot meet the accuracy requirements well. “
It is proper to be explicit about the application of numerical equations and any discretisation attempted as well as empirical knowledge used and the wisdom behind doing so. For example in Lines 169-170, the coefficients are presented to be empirically chosen but no justification or relevant peer reviewed work has been presented to support these.
Please make sure that capitals are used properly eg line 172
Please make sure all figure elements are easily legible. If needed enlarge a figure and re render it. For example Figure 4a is including an insert which has no legible axis labels. Also, Would it be meaningful to reference the natural frequency of the structure in the plots and can the authors further elaborate why they choose to show results up to the chosen frequency (eg 100 Hz) and not lower or higher frequencies?
Author Response
非常感谢你的评论，以下是我的回应。
Point 1: Line 13: rearrange this big sentence and break it into parts where the objectives on this work are clearly stated, with proper grammar.
There is a very frequent use of semicolons (;). It’s suggested that the authors instead break the sentence and start a new one, in hope to increase the readability of this manuscript.
Response 1: The sentence on line 13 has been modified to read:
First, by monitoring the upstream, bottom and downstream pulsating water pressure loads under the partially open operating conditions of the gate, the time-history pulsating pressure loads of each part are obtained. Then, based on the analysis of the dry and wet modes of the gate structure, the influence of the water in front of the gate on the natural vibration mode and frequency of the gate is studied. Furthermore, considering the fluid-structure coupling effect, the hydrodynamic load is applied to the finite element model of the gate structure, and the response results of the gate flow-induced vibration are obtained.
Point 2: The authors have a chance to increase the uptake of the manuscript results from other research groups and be cited more if effort is made to focus the presentation of the outcomes of this research in a generalised fashion (for example Lines 25-26 and in the results and discussion and conclusion sections, the results can be also mentioned in terms of percentage or relative change). It will be nice to see an added emphasis on the practical implications of this study: how do the authors see engineers applying these results in a real world scenario?
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion.The "hydrodynamic characteristic calculation - gate dynamic characteristic analysis - dynamic response analysis" method proposed in this paper was not widely used in the same type of research.Current research method of the gate dynamic problem of large-scale water conservancy projects mainly adopts model experiments, but the defects, as I pointed out in the preface, are not applicable to all projects. For example, the deep hole plane gate studied in this paper is an actual project that is already in operation.The difficulty of conducting dynamic response research through model experiments is large water head , difficult to get equivalence , and high cost with low feasibility. At present, the gate is in a state of normal operation, and the phenomenon of vibration occurs when it is partially opened.
Based on the actual operation of the gate, this study adopted the method of "hydrodynamic characteristic calculation - gate dynamic characteristic analysis - dynamic response analysis" to study the dynamic response of the gate. When the relative opening of the gate was lower than 1/2, the gate vibrates slightly, which were consistent with the phenomenon and the actual observation. This could prove the credibility of the numerical simulation method proposed in this study. The existing numerical simulation methods of flow distribution and structure are quite mature. Reference [24] adopted the same CFD method as this paper, and the error between the calculated pulsating water pressure and the theoretical value was less than 3%. In conclusion, the RNG k-ε model and the VOF method could be considered as high-accuracy numerical simulation methods. Through this paper, it could say that the proposed method is suitable for the feasibility analysis stage and the safety check stage of the actual project.
The current mainstream hydraulic engineering design methods are still mainly based on theoretical calculations, and the design theory for dynamic issues is not mature, and needs to be supplemented by numerical simulation. For example, after preliminary design, numerical simulation could be supplemented to further obtain a more reasonable, safer and more economical scheme. Due to the large scale of most water conservancy projects, the use of numerical simulation methods could greatly reduce the design cost. Reasonable and feasible numerical simulation methods could provide reference for water conservancy engineers and help the process of design and optimize water conservancy projects.
Point 3: There needs be consideration for proper use of grammar and structuring the sentences, throughout the text.
For example see lines 55-57: “Due to the model test is difficult and costly due to the similarity of the material, structure, geometry, physics and mechanics of the model, the model test cannot meet the analysis accuracy requirements well. “There are a number of issues in addition to grammar, such as perhaps the authors referring to physical model tests (needs be mentioned for clarity and distinction to numerical testing). It could be edited to: “Physical model testing is difficult and costly to design and perform, due to limitations around the similarity of the material, structure, geometry, physics and mechanics of the scaled physical model. Thus physical models are not preferable as their analysis cannot meet the accuracy requirements well. “
Response 3: Thank you very much for your guidance, I have checked and revised the full text grammar and will upload the revised paper.
Point 4: It is proper to be explicit about the application of numerical equations and any discretisation attempted as well as empirical knowledge used and the wisdom behind doing so. For example in Lines 169-170, the coefficients are presented to be empirically chosen but no justification or relevant peer reviewed work has been presented to support these.
Response 4: I have added references [31] Versteeg H K, Malalasekera W. An computational introduction to fluid dynamics. Wiley, New York,USA, 1995.
Point 5: Please make sure that capitals are used properly eg line 172
Response 5: I have checked the full text and made corrections
Point 6: Please make sure all figure elements are easily legible. If needed enlarge a figure and re render it. For example Figure 4a is including an insert which has no legible axis labels. Also, Would it be meaningful to reference the natural frequency of the structure in the plots and can the authors further elaborate why they choose to show results up to the chosen frequency (eg 100 Hz) and not lower or higher frequencies?
Response 6: I have zoomed in on the axis labels of Figure 4a. In Figure 4, the purpose of analyzing the frequency of hydrodynamics is to compare it with the natural vibration frequency of the structure to simply judge whether resonance occurs. Reasons for choosing 100Hz: 1. For more accurate results, the sampling frequency of spectrum analysis is 0.005s, and the maximum frequency of the analysis results is 100Hz. 2. The natural frequencies of the first few orders of the structure are close to but not exceeding 100 Hz, so 100 Hz is selected as the upper limit.
I will add the revised paper to the attachment, thank you very much for your valuable comments, I wish you all the best.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper takes an actual engineering deep-hole plane steel gate as an example. A numerical analysis method of flow-induced vibration of gate structure is established, which combines "hydrodynamic characteristic calculation - gate dynamic characteristic analysis - dynamic response analysis".
In line 250, kg/m3 should be changed to kg/m3. Mpa should be changed to Mpa.
In line 448-449, which country does this standard belong to?
The article is well written and there is no theoretical flaw. For this reason, I suggest to accept this paper with minor revisions.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review, here is my response.
Point 1: In line 250, kg/m3 should be changed to kg/m3. Mpa should be changed to Mpa.
Response 1: I have made corrections in the paper.
Point 2: In line 448-449, which country does this standard belong to?
Response 2: This standard is the water conservancy industry standard of the People's Republic of China, I have marked in the paper.
I will add the revised paper to the attachment, thank you very much for your valuable comments, I wish you all the best.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have provided a detailed reply to my comments. They have addressed some of the generic points in their manuscript, but they could do a bit more.
for example, note the header “volume of fluid” not having the first word capitalised as should be done to retain consistency with other headers in the manuscript.
i think the revisions are sufficient for acceptance but a more detailed review would benefit the presentation of this manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review and guidance!
Point 1: The authors have provided a detailed reply to my comments. They have addressed some of the generic points in their manuscript, but they could do a bit more.
for example, note the header “volume of fluid” not having the first word capitalised as should be done to retain consistency with other headers in the manuscript.
i think the revisions are sufficient for acceptance but a more detailed review would benefit the presentation of this manuscript.
Response 1:
Thank you for pointing out the questions in my paper.
As you suggested, there were also some vocabulary and grammar problems in my paper. After reading the whole text thoroughly, I have revised the letters in each title, and corrected some word order and grammar problems.
In the abstract and conclusion, I described the practical application in a more detailed way. The numerical simulation method proposed in this paper could be used as an effective method in hydraulic engineering design and safety checks. Compared with model experiment, the time and cost of numerical simulation method would be lower with higher accuracy, as an important reference for design and safety verification.
I will upload the revised paper.
Thank you again for your guidance. I wish you all the best.
