Analyzing the Efficacy of Nickel Plating Coating in Hydraulic Pipeline Drag Reduction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research evaluates the extent of drag reduction afforded by the coatings and concurrently elucidates the underlying mechanisms. It could be improved with the following modification.
1) How many samples were used for measurement. The date such as table 3 and table 2 should be described in mean with error.
2) Coating date such as mopholgies and roughness should be added.
3) The axis in figure 8 is missing
4) The mechanism should be detailed or more comparison
5) Some work could be cited such as doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2023.109003
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome parts need to be further checked.
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Why adopt the processing method of chemical plating technique？
2. Why are the three coating thicknesses in the article used? Are thicknesses of 15m and 25m feasible?
3. How is the size of the experimental pipeline determined?
4. Why is the pipeline in the test bench placed horizontally?
5. Most of the references are from recent years, and previous classic articles can be borrowed for reference as appropriate.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReferee's Report
Journal: Lubricants (ISSN 2075-4442)
Manuscript ID.: lubricants-2775465
Title: Analyzing the Efficacy of Nickel Plating Coating in Hydraulic Pipeline Drag Reduction
Recommendation: Major Revision
Reviewer's comments:
This research examines the drag reduction effects of nickel plating coatings on hydraulic pipes. The assessment objectively evaluates the influence of different coating thicknesses, flow velocities, and pipeline diameters on the flow resistance of pipelines. The study assesses the level of drag reduction provided by the coatings by carefully monitoring the pressure difference throughout the pipeline. At the same time, it clarifies the fundamental mechanics involved. The article is of current interest and falls in the scope of the journal, however, there are the following suggestions authors should address and then I welcome for publication:
1. The abstract needs to be reformulated to be more exciting and interesting to reflect the efforts made by the authors in this review.
2. A clear research motivation along with how this study is important to fill the research gap in this area must be added at the end of the introduction section with real-life applications. What brief recommendations concerning practice can be given by the authors based on the results of the study?
3. Responses to the following inquiries should be included in the Abstract: What issue was investigated, and why is it significant? What techniques were employed? What are the significant outcomes? What conclusions may be made in light of the findings? What makes this work novel, and how does it differ from earlier literary efforts? Include the primary conclusions and study's goal in the abstract. Please remove any collection references such as [1-4], [6-9], [10-12], [23-26], etc.
4. There are several grammatical mistakes. There are significant concerns about the grammar, usage, and overall readability of the manuscript. Therefore, the request is to revise the text to fix the grammatical errors and improve the overall readability of the text before this work is considered for publication such as title letter, capital letters in the middle of sentences, abstract errors, etc.
5. More clarifications should be provided regarding the studies that the authors relied on in the review process, in terms of what the study presented, what was the meaning of it, what it found, and what the shortcomings of the study were, and so it was completed by the next study, and so on.
6. All equations that have not been derived by the authors should be given previously published references in reputable journals such as equation (1), etc.
7. What is the physical meaning of the authors' choice of these ranges of parameters?
8. The conclusion section is very informative to understand the most important findings. It should be more illustrative of the physical aspects, which summarize the results and objectives of the work in abbreviated points not in the paragraph form.
9. The sentence "This decrease in pressure difference directly correlates with reduced linear losses within the system." is not clear.
10. The authors said "This emphasizes the importance of careful diameter and velocity selections to enhance hydraulic system performance.", the choice of diameter and velocity should be linked to the choice of nickel in the plating process to minimize drag in these systems. This is must be explained in the manuscript to highlight the extent to which this study differs from previous studies.
I believe that the above changes will certainly add value to the already well-documented contribution by the authors. With these modifications, I think this already very good article can be improved somewhat and will be better. I then welcome it for publication after revision.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageReferee's Report
Journal: Lubricants (ISSN 2075-4442)
Manuscript ID.: lubricants-2775465
Title: Analyzing the Efficacy of Nickel Plating Coating in Hydraulic Pipeline Drag Reduction
Recommendation: Major Revision
Reviewer's comments:
This research examines the drag reduction effects of nickel plating coatings on hydraulic pipes. The assessment objectively evaluates the influence of different coating thicknesses, flow velocities, and pipeline diameters on the flow resistance of pipelines. The study assesses the level of drag reduction provided by the coatings by carefully monitoring the pressure difference throughout the pipeline. At the same time, it clarifies the fundamental mechanics involved. The article is of current interest and falls in the scope of the journal, however, there are the following suggestions authors should address and then I welcome for publication:
1. The abstract needs to be reformulated to be more exciting and interesting to reflect the efforts made by the authors in this review.
2. A clear research motivation along with how this study is important to fill the research gap in this area must be added at the end of the introduction section with real-life applications. What brief recommendations concerning practice can be given by the authors based on the results of the study?
3. Responses to the following inquiries should be included in the Abstract: What issue was investigated, and why is it significant? What techniques were employed? What are the significant outcomes? What conclusions may be made in light of the findings? What makes this work novel, and how does it differ from earlier literary efforts? Include the primary conclusions and study's goal in the abstract. Please remove any collection references such as [1-4], [6-9], [10-12], [23-26], etc.
4. There are several grammatical mistakes. There are significant concerns about the grammar, usage, and overall readability of the manuscript. Therefore, the request is to revise the text to fix the grammatical errors and improve the overall readability of the text before this work is considered for publication such as title letter, capital letters in the middle of sentences, abstract errors, etc.
5. More clarifications should be provided regarding the studies that the authors relied on in the review process, in terms of what the study presented, what was the meaning of it, what it found, and what the shortcomings of the study were, and so it was completed by the next study, and so on.
6. All equations that have not been derived by the authors should be given previously published references in reputable journals such as equation (1), etc.
7. What is the physical meaning of the authors' choice of these ranges of parameters?
8. The conclusion section is very informative to understand the most important findings. It should be more illustrative of the physical aspects, which summarize the results and objectives of the work in abbreviated points not in the paragraph form.
9. The sentence "This decrease in pressure difference directly correlates with reduced linear losses within the system." is not clear.
10. The authors said "This emphasizes the importance of careful diameter and velocity selections to enhance hydraulic system performance.", the choice of diameter and velocity should be linked to the choice of nickel in the plating process to minimize drag in these systems. This is must be explained in the manuscript to highlight the extent to which this study differs from previous studies.
I believe that the above changes will certainly add value to the already well-documented contribution by the authors. With these modifications, I think this already very good article can be improved somewhat and will be better. I then welcome it for publication after revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI've read the manuscript (lubricants-2775465) in detail and my comments are as follows:
General Comments:
In the manuscript, drag reduction in hydraulic systems is examined experimentally under three different flow velocity, pipeline diameter, and nickel coating conditions with a constant inlet pressure and pipeline length. The outcomes are evaluated for the application of nickel coatings which offers a major advantage to mitigate linear loss in hydraulic pipelines and several other operational benefits. I believe that the research contributes to the current literature positively. The research design is appropriate, and the organization of the paper is good. The introduction section provides sufficient background information from the literature. In my humble opinion, the quality of paper may be increased further if the points below are considered/corrected.
Specific Comments:
-Much details should be given for the method of the study.
-Please add a paragraph to discuss what novelty this research presents to the current literature and how the results of this research affect future studies. The outcomes should be compared with the literature.
-The findings should be discussed for current and further studies (pros/cons).
-Conclusions may be expanded with limitations of the outcomes and the recommendations for future studies.
-Line 93: Please check the sentence "...approach serves as a gateway to advancing hydraulic systems and improving piping..."
-Line 145: I think, a reference should be given to the following condition (Reynolds numbers Re＜2300).
-Line 281-282: Units are missing (please also check the entire text for units)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript could be acceptable
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter checking through the revised version, it is worth mentioning that the authors have satisfactorily responded to all the questions and made the necessary changes to the manuscript. I have no further questions and suggest accepting the revised manuscript.
