A Concept of Fuzzy Dual Permeability of Fractured Porous Media
Davood Toghraie
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
· Well-known information should not be overused in the abstract, even as background information. The abstract should be briefly written to describe the purpose of the research, the principal results, and major conclusions. Please revise.
· The legend of the full text must be rewritten, and the content seems too little.
· The article has some minor grammatical errors, which should be carefully proofread
· Please add the main findings and objective of the current study in the abstract.
· What are the applications upon which the study is based?
· What are the benchmark cases in your study?
· Punctuation is missing after some equations.
· What are the special cases of your study?
· The Abstract should be written to be able to stand alone and summarize the important discussions and show the novelty of this work and its need for publication now.
· 9. The references should be formatted following the journal requirements, English revision is a must, and figures should be improved and standardized to be suitable for publication.
International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 108, 104285, 2019 Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry 141, 1669-1685, 2020 Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 25, 100977, 2021
The work is poorly planned and written and the topic should also change after the suggested corrections to include all discussed points in this review
· Well-known information should not be overused in the abstract, even as background information. The abstract should be briefly written to describe the purpose of the research, the principal results, and major conclusions. Please revise.
· The legend of the full text must be rewritten, and the content seems too little.
· The article has some minor grammatical errors, which should be carefully proofread
· Please add the main findings and objective of the current study in the abstract.
· What are the applications upon which the study is based?
· What are the benchmark cases in your study?
· Punctuation is missing after some equations.
· What are the special cases of your study?
· The Abstract should be written to be able to stand alone and summarize the important discussions and show the novelty of this work and its need for publication now.
· 9. The references should be formatted following the journal requirements, English revision is a must, and figures should be improved and standardized to be suitable for publication.
The work is poorly planned and written and the topic should also change after the suggested corrections to include all discussed points in this review
Author Response
The author appreciates very much critical and constructive comments of the Reviewer.
Well-known information should not be overused in the abstract, even as background information. The abstract should be briefly written to describe the purpose of the research, the principal results, and major conclusions. Please revise.
The abstract was revised.
- The legend of the full text must be rewritten, and the content seems too little.
The text was rewritten according to a more clearly defined goal of the paper.
- The article has some minor grammatical errors, which should be carefully proofread
The text was checked for grammatical errors.
- Please add the main findings and objective of the current study in the abstract.
The abstract was rewritten.
The goal of the paper is to introduce a concept of fuzzy dual-permeability of fractured-porous media based on the fuzzy systems analysis of the results of ponded infiltration tests in fractured basalt.
- What are the applications upon which the study is based?
Incorporation of fuzzy systems approach into hydrogeological analysis and modeling will allow researchers to characterize the uncertainty phenomena of flow and transport in geological formations.
- What are the benchmark cases in your study?
The benchmark theory for this publication is a model of dual permeability of fractured-porous media. The benchmark cases are the results of the data analyses of ponded infiltration tests at the Hell’s Half Acre and Box Canyon sites.
- Punctuation is missing after some equations.
Corrected.
- The Abstract should be written to be able to stand alone and summarize the important discussions and show the novelty of this work and its need for publication now.
The abstract was rewritten to show the novelty and to stand alone.
- 9. The references should be formatted following the journal requirements, English revision is a must, and figures should be improved and standardized to be suitable for publication.
The references are formatted. The grammar and figures are improved.
The work is poorly planned and written and the topic should also change after the suggested corrections to include all discussed points in this review.
The reviewer’s suggestions were taken into account and the paper was rewritten.
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments
Hydrogeological research that fits either the journal or the special issue. However, several detail is missing and all the specific comments need to be addressed before publication. I am available under request of the editors to review the manuscript a second time.
Specific comments
Page 1 . “The goal of the paper is to illustrate the application of the fuzzy systems analysis of the results of ponded infiltration experiments, using fuzzy clustering, fuzzy regression, and fuzzy prediction analysis”. Revise the structure of the sentence and fix repletion of the word fuzzy
Page 1. “Methods of fuzzy clustering and fuzzy regression”. Delete “fuzzy” to avoid repetition
Page 1. “Multiple factors are affecting the infiltration into the subsurface, such as rough or rocky surface topography, subsurface media heterogeneity, soil swelling or shrinking, and soil aggregation, water and air redistribution within the porous space”. The sentence is not backed/up by references. Please, add the ones below that quantify the effect of the geological heterogeneities, topography and soil type on groundwater infiltration rates.
- Medici, G. and Langman, J.B., 2022. Pathways and Estimate of Aquifer Recharge in a Flood Basalt Terrain; A Review from the South Fork Palouse River Basin (Columbia River Plateau, USA). Sustainability, 14(18), p.11349.
- Manna, F., Cherry, J.A., McWhorter, D.B. and Parker, B.L., 2016. Groundwater recharge assessment in an upland sandstone aquifer of southern California. Journal of Hydrology, 541, pp.787-799.
Pages 1-2. Mention basalts in the introduction and say that are the most permeable rocks after karstic carbonates. See reference below for statistics of transmissivity values in different rocks worldwide:
- Freeze R.A., Cherry J.A., 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Page 3. Avoid using the world “channel” that is related to karst hydrogeology. Fracture flow is better in this scenario?
Page 7. “Note that the fuzzy confidence intervals are different from a statistical linear regression model”. Remove brackets here.
Page 11. Fix formatting issue in the conclusions
Pages 12-13. Add the three relevant references suggested above
Figures and tables
Figure 2.2 Increase the graphic resolution of the graph.
Too many Figures 2 and 4. Overall, your paper should have nine figures (1 to 9)
Minor edits
Author Response
Page 1 . “The goal of the paper is to illustrate the application of the fuzzy systems analysis of the results of ponded infiltration experiments, using fuzzy clustering, fuzzy regression, and fuzzy prediction analysis”. Revise the structure of the sentence and fix repletion of the word fuzzy.
The reviewer comment is taken into account.
Page 1. “Methods of fuzzy clustering and fuzzy regression”. Delete “fuzzy” to avoid repetition.
Revised.
Page 1. “Multiple factors are affecting the infiltration into the subsurface, such as rough or rocky surface topography, subsurface media heterogeneity, soil swelling or shrinking, and soil aggregation, water and air redistribution within the porous space”. The sentence is not backed/up by references. Please, add the ones below that quantify the effect of the geological heterogeneities, topography and soil type on groundwater infiltration rates.
- Medici, G. and Langman, J.B., 2022. Pathways and Estimate of Aquifer Recharge in a Flood Basalt Terrain; A Review from the South Fork Palouse River Basin (Columbia River Plateau, USA). Sustainability, 14(18), p.11349.
- Manna, F., Cherry, J.A., McWhorter, D.B. and Parker, B.L., 2016. Groundwater recharge assessment in an upland sandstone aquifer of southern California. Journal of Hydrology, 541, pp.787-799.
References added.
Pages 1-2. Mention basalts in the introduction and say that are the most permeable rocks after karstic carbonates. See reference below for statistics of transmissivity values in different rocks worldwide:
- Freeze R.A., Cherry J.A., 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.
Corrected and the reference added.
Page 3. Avoid using the world “channel” that is related to karst hydrogeology. Fracture flow is better in this scenario?
Corrected
Page 7. “Note that the fuzzy confidence intervals are different from a statistical linear regression model”. Remove brackets here.
Corrected
Page 11. Fix formatting issue in the conclusions.
Conclusions are written.
Pages 12-13. Add the three relevant references suggested above
References added.
Figures and tables
Figure 2.2 Increase the graphic resolution of the graph.
Too many Figures 2 and 4. Overall, your paper should have nine figures (1 to 9)
Figures are improved.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper provides an interesting and useful interpretation methodology of ponded infiltration test through fuzzy logic. I have no concerns about the method or the validity of the results. But they (methods and results) are not presented well, reducing the interesting of the reader. Especially section 4.2. need more explanation and an improvment of the presentation of the results. A discussion section of the results is not present. Other comment are present in the attached pdf.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
All comments of Reviewer 3 have been taken into account.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The author improved the manuscript according the review suggestions.
