Uncertainty Assessment for Determining the Discharge Coefficient C for a Multi-Opening Orifice
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The author presents experimental results for a multi-opening orifice for a progressing turbulent flow. The author shows that relative expanded uncertainty of determining discharge coefficient does not exceed 1.25% and is close in value to standardized orifices. The paper is interesting and could be published subject to the following revisions:
The author should refer to review studies on uncertainty modelling and their potential use in experiments too: D. Drikakis, N. Asproulis, Quantification of Computational Uncertainty in Science and Engineering, ASME Applied Mechanics Review, 64(4), 2011, as well as to advanced uncertainty methods: C. Barmparousis, D. Drikakis, Multi-dimensional quantification of uncertainty and application to a turbulent mixing model, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids, 85:385–403, 2017.
Figure 2 should be explained in more detail.
Author Response
The author presents experimental results for a multi-opening orifice for a progressing turbulent flow. The author shows that relative expanded uncertainty of determining discharge coefficient does not exceed 1.25% and is close in value to standardized orifices. The paper is interesting and could be published subject to the following revisions:
- The author should refer to review studies on uncertainty modelling and their potential use in experiments too: D. Drikakis, N. Asproulis, Quantification of Computational Uncertainty in Science and Engineering, ASME Applied Mechanics Review, 64(4), 2011, as well as to advanced uncertainty methods: C. Barmparousis, D. Drikakis, Multi-dimensional quantification of uncertainty and application to a turbulent mixing model, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids, 85:385–403, 2017.
Author Action/Response:
I agree with the Reviewer. The referenced literature was included in the revised version of the manuscript (line: 49 – 52, 269 -272).
- Figure 2 should be explained in more detail.
Author Action/Response:
I thank the Reviewer for this remark. Figure 2 has been corrected (line: 100-108)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Many thanks for your work. However, many aspects must be changed prior to even submission.
1- The novelty of the work is not obvious. What is novel in your work!!
2- The abstract is very short and not enough details provided.
3- The introduction is very short!
4- The paper is not ready at all. Even the Author contribution is just pasted from the MDPI template.
5- The grammatical mistakes and typos are very obvious.
6- References are very few. It must be updated.
7- Many equations have been used but the proper explanation and nomenclature must be provided.
8- The manuscript text is not fully connected.
In this format I suggest resubmission.
Author Response
Dear Authors,
Many thanks for your work. However, many aspects must be changed prior to even submission.
- The novelty of the work is not obvious. What is novel in your work!!
Author Action/Response:
I would like to thank the Reviewer for this remark and thorough analysis. The introduction of the manuscript has been changed and described the novelty (line: 73-77).
- The abstract is very short and not enough details provided.
Author Action/Response:
I agree with the Reviewer. Manuscript abstract has been corrected and refined (line: 9-17).
- The introduction is very short!
Author Action/Response:
I agree with the Reviewer. The introduction to the manuscript has been corrected and expanded (line: 22-77).
- The paper is not ready at all. Even the Author contribution is just pasted from the MDPI template.
Author Action/Response:
The new version of the manuscript has been significantly improved and completed over the old version. Author contribution was not completed, because the author of the manuscript completely prepared the entire article, as well as each of its stages, from the idea, literature review, research, analyzes and conclusions to photos, drawings and references.
- The grammatical mistakes and typos are very obvious.
Author Action/Response:
I agree with the Reviewer. Corrected grammar errors throughout the manuscript.
- References are very few. It must be updated.
Author Action/Response:
I agree with the Reviewer. The bibliography in the manuscript has been expanded (line: 248 - 257, 269 - 272).
- Many equations have been used but the proper explanation and nomenclature must be provided.
Author Action/Response:
I agree with the Reviewer. The nomenclature used in the manuscript was supplemented and the description was extended to include the formulas (line: 227-228).
- The manuscript text is not fully connected.
Author Action/Response:
I agree with the Reviewer. The manuscript text has been revised for greater consistency.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
It is made an experimental study of multi-opening orifice. This study can be used for future measurement similar to this one. It is easy to read.
Author Response
It is made an experimental study of multi-opening orifice. This study can be used for future measurement similar to this one. It is easy to read.
Author Action/Response:
Thank you very much to the Reviewer for his thorough analysis of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author,
Many thanks for the revised version. I can see it has been improved and now the novelty is clearly mentioned. You have tried to also punctually answer all the comments which is really nice. As it is a kind of experimental work it must have some conclusions out of it. I think it would be better if you wrote it in Results and discussion part and some useful conclusions could be reported at the end. As a suggestion I think it would be better if you follow the regular format of the paper. Another drawback is that: all abbreviations or nomenclature must be placed in an alphabetical order.
Author Response
Dear Author,
Many thanks for the revised version. I can see it has been improved and now the novelty is clearly mentioned. You have tried to also punctually answer all the comments which is really nice. As it is a kind of experimental work it must have some conclusions out of it. I think it would be better if you wrote it in Results and discussion part and some useful conclusions could be reported at the end. As a suggestion I think it would be better if you follow the regular format of the paper. Another drawback is that: all abbreviations or nomenclature must be placed in an alphabetical order.
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much to the Reviewer for his comments and thorough analysis. I revised the manuscript following your comments exactly. All modifications are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. The Reviewer comments (in blue) have been thoroughly addressed as follows.A modification of the manuscript towards a standard article format was introduced by adding the Results and discussion section, while limiting the Conclusions to two important final statements. All abbreviations are listed alphabetically (line: 180-188; 208; 210-211; 223-224)
Sincerely yours, Andrzej Mrowiec
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
