A Novel Approach to the Improvement of the Hydropower Plants Protective Measures—Modelling and Numerical Analyses of the Semi-Pneumatic Surge Tank

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

The paper is really interesting and very well written. I have not found some important issues. Some small deficiencies are pointed in the originally submitted file. Please see it. Below I present important remarks concerning the quality of the paper.

Chapter 2. Describe whether the entire mathematical model is introduced by the Authors or part of it? It is not clear for a reader. If it is a part, please explain which parts are added.

General. Please, state clearly in the Introduction what is the novelty of the paper.

Chapter 3.1. L170. Please state clearly how you trust your “previously developed, repeatedly tested and reliable original software [36]. ” (the cited reference is in Serbian, so it cannot be read by non-Serbian readers). Please describe and justify how you trust your software.

L198. Explain in the text why the mentioned effects can be neglected.

General comment. The nomenclature should be added.

L213. Explain why the absolute air pressure lowers so deeply to 65 kPa (surge tank is open to atmospheric pressure)?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1-The abstract is well-written. It briefly provides a background of the paper. 
It highlights the methodology and provides a highlight of the main outcome. 

2-The introduction is also well-written.  A background is provided. The research gab is identified and the aims and the objectives are clear.

3-The methodology is well-written with all the necessary references. However, the Validation is missing (code-to-code). This will require a (major correction of the paper)

4-While one case of study is enough to display its results, you also need to show that result's certainty is not affected if another case of study is performed (Major correction is required) 

5- Results are well-presented 

6-Discussion and conclusion are supported by the results. 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have successfully addressed all the previous comments. 

No further correction is required.