Application of Three-Dimensional CFD Model to Determination of the Capacity of Existing Tyrolean Intake

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors describe CPD modelling around intakes to hydropower. This is a useful study especially in terms of the comparison between the two CFD model results.

l.18-22 It's a little difficult to understand the context as the authors don't give much background. An additional introductory paragraph is required to explain what is meant by 'secondary intakes' and why we need them.

the concept of 'ortophotoes' (abstract) needs further explanation as I do not think the term has common usage

l.41 authors used 'for' when I think they mean 'per', please check

l.70-80 contain a general description of the aims but this does not feel sufficiently specific for what is being proposed and the authors should rewrite this section as a set of specific objectives or research questions that capture the essence of the work more precisely.

Section 2 requires a broader description of location of site, some sort of site map would also help, also provide elevation and lat and long data.

Fig 12 caption needs further explanation as the figure text is in Norwegian

Fig 16 quality should be improved - increase text size and sharper focus

l.328-375 Conclusions generally well supported by results and are okay as they stand. There may be room for improvement in terms of reducing the number of key points to distil the findings for an international audience. Also there is virtually no mention of secondary intakes at all here so a sharper focus may be required.

Generally, authors could add value to the submission by providing more detail in each of the figure captions to explain what is going on in each figure. 

I believe the whole of the text needs thorough go-through by an experienced author to correct minor grammatical issues to help readers, otherwise the impact of the study may be limited.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers for water-2846423
“Application of Three-Dimensional CFD Model to Determination of the Capacity of Existing Tyrolean Intake”

Dear Reviewer,
We find the comments and suggestions valuable and have revised the manuscript accordingly. In the following text, we provide a point-by-point response to comments. We have also worked on additional improvements of the manuscript to make it more consistent and have removed some spelling and grammar errors. 

Kindest Regards,
Aslı BOR 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic and background of the study are relevant for practical applications. However, the scientific soundness leaves room for improvement:

- citation of the equations is not always compliant with mathematical conventions (e.g. continuity equation should read nabla u = 0 not nabla X u = 0) In mathematical convention nabla (=del^2) is based on the <inner> vector product, while X denotes the <outer> product. Clearly this is metely a matter of notation, but the meaning of X is not given by the authors.

- for the physical problem at hand the length and time scales are on the order of m(etres) and s(econds). The time step used by the authors is in the order of milli(?!) seconds, which explains the lengthy duration and muliple processors needed to carry out the computations - but are not in accordance with commom engineering practice. The authors are invited to address those items and better explain their approach. In its present form the computational approach has all the appearances of ‘using any off the shelf package will do’. That does not merit publication in water.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some double checking of notably single/plural forms deserve some attention.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers for water-2846423
“Application of Three-Dimensional CFD Model to Determination of the Capacity of Existing Tyrolean Intake”

 

Dear Reviewer,

We find the comments and suggestions valuable and have revised the manuscript accordingly. In the following text, we provide a point-by-point response to comments. We have also worked on additional improvements of the manuscript to make it more consistent and have removed some spelling and grammar errors.

 

Kindest Regards,

Aslı BOR

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the authors have adequately addressed all comments and adjusted the manuscript accordingly.

as a consequence the manuscript can be published in its present form