Estimation of Settling Velocity and Floc Distribution through Simple Particles Sedimentation Experiments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I am satisfied with the revisions that the authors have made, and am happy to recommend publication as is.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- More background information about the flocculation and sedimentation of tailings should be provided in the Introduction.
- It is also suggested to add the original PSD in Fig. 6 so that it is easier to compare.
- It needs to point out that the numerical results were not accurate. As we all know, the initial setting is super-important for the overall setting of tailings (partly due to its high velocity). However, the numerical model didn't work well during the simulation of the initial settling velocity. The authors should provide more explanations about this.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
In serious journals a major revision, as suggested, means an additional 1-2 month of work and significant changes. You are too quick, making just a minor revision. Your method is not exclusive, you should try to apply other methods and compare the results in discussion.
I have no more patience to review this article. In that form it should be treated rather as a communication, not scientific article.
Regards,
Reviewer No.1
Author Response
(Title : Estimation of settling velocity and floc distribution through particles sedimentation experiments)
- Q) More background information about the flocculation and sedimentation of tailings should be provided in the Introduction.
- A) ‘In addition, During the sedimentation of the tailings being discharged, there are currents, salts, water temperature and various external influences, and accordingly, the settling velocity and flocculation phenomenon differ depending on the discharge concentration and particle size.
As such, the residue material discharged into the water is influenced by various factors, so it is very complicated and difficult to accurately estimate the settling velocity and floc-distribution.’
The scope of the impact of flocculation and sedimentation and the difficulty of estimation were added to the introduction as above.
- Q) It is also suggested to add the original PSD in Fig. 6 so that it is easier to compare.
- A) 2 and Fig. 7 are the volume percentage of the particles, which means the volume contained according to the particle size. Fig. 6 also shows the mass percentage contained in each particle size. The ylabel was modified, and an explanation for this was given in the beginning of paragraph 3.3.
- Q) It needs to point out that the numerical results were not accurate. As we all know, the initial setting is super-important for the overall setting of tailings (partly due to its high velocity). However, the numerical model didn't work well during the simulation of the initial settling velocity. The authors should provide more explanations about this.
- A) This is a paper for the purpose of estimating floc-distribution and verifying the performance of numerical simulation using an apparent settling velocity rather than using the exact equipment (ex. LISST-100). Within) There are limitations in estimating the exact settling velocity of a section by analysis. However, it can be confirmed that experiments and simulations fit well in all sections except the first part. In addition, the content of the point indicated was presented in the last paragraph of the discussion.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of the paper is very relevant and of interest to the reviewer. However, the work lacks of scientific structure. The quality of the writing needs a lot of improvement. A proper literature review needs to be developed. Results are not handled properly and are hard to follow. Variables of interest are not defined. The paper should be re-written as a technical note of no more than 2000 words.
Reviewer 3 Report
As a whole, I found the manuscript well-written, with clear descriptions of the methodology, reasoning, observations and conclusions. I think it's definitely a valuable contribution to the field, and do recommend publication.
In Section 3.4 on the numerical simulation, the authors show that the predicted falling velocity matches the experimental results fairly well. I do agree that qualitatively they are similar, especially about 60s into the settling process where the data and prediction nearly overlap. I am curious about the first 10s or so though; the simulation data shows a plateau before suddenly decreasing. This is unlike the smooth decrease in the experimental data. Perhaps the authors might like to elaborate on this? I think it might be alluded to in Section 4, but not too sure. Additionally, I thought the initial falling velocities (i.e. at t=0) should be similar for both simulation and experiment?
Some minor suggestions:
1. (Introduction, p2, line 49) '... size distribution IS needed ...'
2. (Section 3.1, p7, line 232) remove 'because of ...'; this was already mentioned 3 lines earlier.
3. (Section 3.1, p7, line 237) '... slightly better FIT in cases...'
4. (Section 3.3, p8, line 259) 'The plots SHOW the ...'
5. (Section 3.4, p9, line 275) replace 'input velocity' with 'measured velocity'. If 'input' is used, it sounds like initial conditions and not the evolving velocity from the experiments.
6. (Conclusions, p11, line 321) '... study cannot be fully ...'
7. (References, p14, line 515) The author names here don't match the style of the other references - 'Zhiyao', 'Tingting', 'Fumin' etc. are the authors' first names not family names.
