Optimal Design and Fish-Passing Performance Analysis of a Fish-Friendly Axial Flow Pump

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, taking a common axial flow pump as the research object, the fish pressure damage experiment was carried out, and the survival conditions and corresponding survival thresholds of several kinds of fish under different pressures were explored, which provided an effective evaluation basis for the later optimization design. However, it is within the scope of Applied Sciences Journal but it needs major revisions, as follows:

1. The English of this manuscript should be reviewed by a native English speaker.

2. Abstract not well organized. It is too long so it should be shortened by focusing by bring out what was missing in the earlier literature. What are the new contribution, motivation, hypothesis, and significant results? It is recommended to use quantitative reasoning.

3. Introduction: It is almost impossible to understand the motivation for conducting this research after reading the Introduction. Clear statements on the motivation behind conducting the research should be mentioned instead of the instruction section. It needs modifications by new recent literature to show the difference between the current work and the previous one.

4. The main concern I have about the paper is with respect to the contributions of your work. The used methodology has few outstanding innovation points. So what innovative work have you done compared with previous studies?

5. How does your work contribute to this field? It is not clearly stated in the abstract and conclusions sections.

6. Numerical simulation should be provided in a separate section including setup, grid generation, mesh independence, assumptions, input data, and operating conditions.

7. The experimental setup section should be rewritten by focusing on the instrumentation with their uncertainty, experimental procedure, and repeatability. The experimental procedure should be provided in a clear way.

8. Uncertainty analysis is missing, so it should be provided. Sub-heading in terms of reduction data should be provided.

9.  More parametric analysis is required where results are not sufficient and there are some inconsistencies in the results of tables and figures.

10. The discussion should be connected with real applications and issues related to technology/system nature. The results should be enhanced with more description in the physical approach.

11. The work does not provide a well-written conclusion section in terms of main findings and contributions. The relevance of the work with respect to the applied science aspect should be discussed in the conclusion section

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English of this manuscript should be reviewed by a native English speaker.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is well written. I recommend accepting it after a minor revision. There are a few cases where it can be upgraded. Here I am suggesting some upgrades:

1. introduction part is too long, please reduce it.

2. edit the caption of figure 2.

3. caption of Table 1 is not appropriate. 

4. please present table 2 in a better way. it is difficult to understand.

5. number of figures are too much. merge these figures. 

6. conclusion part is too large. please shorten it. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please read the attached file. Thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reports optimal design and fish-passing performance analysis of fish-friendly axial flow pump. The results are original and maybe worth publication in applied sciences (after the following problems have been fixed). The comments to be accounted are as follows:

1. Clarify the abbreviation such like AHTS, ALSTOM

2. About the paragraph 4 on page 2, if the authors want to introduce the developments of axial flow pump design following the time, please update the time for each research. Or authors want to introduce the research in 1990s. If not, authors may consider rewriting this paragraph to clarify this part.

3. In the paper, how many fish have been used in the experiment?  Furthermore, please identify ' abnormal fish'.

4. In section 2.2, how long is the specific time to provide temperature, fresh air, and oxygen before the experiment? The authors please  consider to provide a standard instead of a rough identification like ' a day'.

5. In line 272, how do the L/d affect p,q? please do some detailed explanation.

6.  How to create the model and simulate it in the section 4.1&4.2? What is software used in this section?

7.  How to create the model of the fish and simulate?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Please carefully check the initialization of the first letter in the sentences.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors modified their manuscript properly to the raised comments by editor. Therefore, the editor recommends that it can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revised paper mostly meet the comments and would be worth to publishing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English still needs minor improvement.