Study of the Effect of Gas Baffles on the Prevention and Control of Gas Leakage and Explosion Hazards in aUtility Tunnel
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the manuscript, Fluent is used to simulate and study the effect of gas baffles on the prevention and control of gas leakage and explosion hazards in utility tunnel, which has certain engineering practical significance. The main problems are as follows:
1) The description of the results in the abstract is too simple, and it is suggested to add relevant content appropriately;
2) What is the mesh size of the gas explosion model in Section 2.2.3 and what is the maximum mesh size;
3) In Section 3.1.1, the location information of the monitoring point of the leakage model in the gas cabin is not clear enough. The paper only gives 1m on the leeward side of the gas baffle, and no other information is given, so the location of the monitoring point cannot be determined;
4) How to verify the results of shock wave propagation of simulated gas explosion;
5) Please examine whether the description of "proving that the gas baffle has a certain effect of detonation" in conclusion 2 is reasonable.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The description of the results in the abstract is too simple, and it is suggested to add relevant content appropriately;
Response 1: For point 1, We used the track change function in MS office to make supplementary modifications to the abstract of the article.
Point 2: What is the mesh size of the gas explosion model in Section 2.2.3 and what is the maximum mesh size;
Response 2: The element size of the gas explosion model in Section 2.2.3 is 0.2m. The maximum mesh size is also 0.2m.
Point 3: In Section 3.1.1, the location information of the monitoring point of the leakage model in the gas cabin is not clear enough. The paper only gives 1m on the leeward side of the gas baffle, and no other information is given, so the location of the monitoring point cannot be determined;
Response 3: According to regulations, the gas monitor in the gas cabin must be no more than 0.3m from the top of the gas cabin. In this model, the vertical distance between the leak hole and the top of the gas cabin is 3m, so the height of the gas monitor is 2.7m.
Point 4: How to verify the results of shock wave propagation of simulated gas explosion
Response 4: By comparing the published papers of other scholars on the simulation or experimental results of gas explosion in confined space. The simulation results in this paper are consistent with their results and have a certain reference.
Point 5: Please examine whether the description of "proving that the gas baffle has a certain effect of detonation" in conclusion 2 is reasonable.
Response 5: The wording of this conclusion is inappropriate and has been revised.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1.The statements that cover more 'introduction and background' from the abstract can be directly moved here as the first part of the Introduction section (and remove from the abstract).
2.After Introduction and before Literature review sections: please add a brief methodology section to explain:
- the actual method and bounds of your literature review (types of materials reviewed, such as: peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, and/or conference articles, books? patents? etc.?) popular science articles, etc.?.), and what search engines etc. were used?
- literature within which timeline (year to year?)?
- scope: what kind of specific disciplines, keywords etc. were used to screen the literature, e.g.
- limitations (open literature only? etc., and any other limitations?
3.Figures need to be more clear in the revised version.
4.This work need to do grid independency test.
5.The results and discussion part need to improve further especially need more scientific explanation and cross reference.
6.The numerical method is not obvious, where is the Geometry, mesh generation, initial conditions,2D or 3D, unsteady or Steady-state, type of scheme(SIMPLE, or PISO,….).
7.You must add a table of nomenclature and abbreviations.
8.In the conclusion section: Paraphrase the abstract to fit the goal and delete the self-evident phenomena.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The statements that cover more 'introduction and background' from the abstract can be directly moved here as the first part of the Introduction section (and remove from the abstract).
Response 1: The abstract of the article has been modified in response to this recommendation
Point 2: After Introduction and before Literature review sections: please add a brief methodology section to explain:
- the actual method and bounds of your literature review (types of materials reviewed, such as: peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, and/or conference articles, books? patents? etc.?) popular science articles, etc.?.), and what search engines etc. were used?
- literature within which timeline (year to year?)?
- scope: what kind of specific disciplines, keywords etc. were used to screen the literature, e.g.
- limitations (open literature only? etc., and any other limitations?
Response 2: In the literature review, published scientific papers, master's theses, patents and na-tional standard are cited. Web of science and CNKI literature database are used to search the literature. Most of the literatures cited are open papers published in China and other countries in the last five years. Key words of literature are utility tunnel, leakage and diffusion, confined space, gas explosion, Fluent numerical simulation, etc.
Point 3: Figures need to be more clear in the revised version.
Response 3: Changes have been made for all figures that appear in the article. Resized the text in each figure to make it more clear.
Point 4: This work need to do grid independency test.
Response 4: The section on grid independence test has been added after the section on mesh setting.
Point 5: The results and discussion part need to improve further especially need more scientific explanation and cross reference.
Response 5: The conclusions have been revised accordingly.
Point6: The numerical method is not obvious, where is the Geometry, mesh generation, initial conditions,2D or 3D, unsteady or Steady-state, type of scheme(SIMPLE, or PISO,….).
Response 6: This has been added to the section on solution setup of Simulation Setup.
Point 7: You must add a table of nomenclature and abbreviations.
Response 7: The table of nomenclature has been added to the appendix.
Point 8: In the conclusion section: Paraphrase the abstract to fit the goal and delete the self-evident phenomena.
Response 8: The conclusions have been revised accordingly.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Applied Sciences.
