Investigation on the Dynamic Characteristics of a New High-Pressure Water Hydraulic Flow Control Valve

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper needs several edits to be published.

- The abstract includes technical terms that may not be familiar to all readers, such as "pilot dual-stage structure" and "ITAE-based genetic algorithm", without a brief initial explanation. A brief clarification of these terms should be included at the beginning of the abstract to improve accessibility.

- It is repeated several times that water has "low viscosity, poor lubrication and high saturation pressure". This redundancy affects the flow of the text.

- The introduction mentions previous research, but could benefit from including more recent references to contextualize the current state of the research. Studies from the last 2-3 years should be included to strengthen the context and show that the research is aware of the most recent developments. Several interesting topics are recommended for reading:

-Viability Analysis of Tidal Turbine Installation Using Fuzzy Logic: Case Study and Design Considerations

-Water microturbines for sustainable applications: optimization analysis and experimental validation.

 

- The introduction does not clearly connect the state-of-the-art review with the innovation presented in the paper. Add a paragraph that explicitly explains how the presented research overcomes the limitations mentioned in previous work.

-Some equations are not clearly explained or referenced in the text (e.g., equation 3). Make sure that each equation is accompanied by a clear explanation of its variables and how it relates to the valve dynamics.

-"Figure 4(a)" is mentioned in the text, but its content is not adequately explained. Add a brief description of what the figure shows and its significance in the context of the analysis.

-The description of the simulation model in AMESim is brief and lacks details on how the simulation conditions were set up. Additional details on the simulation model settings, such as boundary conditions and specific parameters used, should be included.

-A clear comparison between simulated and experimental results is not made in this section. This can be supported by including comparison graphs in this section to highlight the differences and similarities between simulated and experimental results.

-The article mentions the use of a genetic algorithm, but does not provide enough detail about the parameters used, such as the crossover rate or mutation rate. This can be addressed by including a table or a more detailed description of the specific parameters of the genetic algorithm, including the logic behind the selection of these values.

-There is no clear justification for why certain parameters were chosen for optimization while others were omitted. It needs to be explained why certain key parameters were chosen for optimization, and if possible, mention why other parameters were considered less important.

-The interpretation of the optimization results is not detailed enough. More analysis needs to be included on how the optimization results improved the dynamic characteristics of the valve and what implications these changes have for its practical application.

-The explanation of why the experimental results differ from the simulated ones is superficial. The reasons behind the deviations need to be further explored, considering additional factors such as possible experimental errors, variations in environmental conditions, or differences in the experimental equipment setup.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please revise the manuscript according to the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the modifications have been made but the background section is still weak, it only has 20 references and should be expanded. In the first review, two topics to be taken into account are discussed and background information on these or similar topics could be provided.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: All the modifications have been made but the background section is still weak, it only has 20 references and should be expanded. In the first review, two topics to be taken into account are discussed and background information on these or similar topics could be provided.

Responds to the reviewers' comments: Thank you profoundly for your advice. We have taken into consideration the two topics you offered and augmented the number of references, namely references 3 and 21.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is acceptable in the present form.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: The manuscript is acceptable in the present form.

Responds to the reviewers' comments: Thank you very much for your review, and we wish you a happy life.