Fluctuation in the Water Level of the Air Hole of the Gate Shaft in the Pumped Storage Power Station

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

A summary of the paper content, what are the steps to achieve the final conclusions is still missing from the introduction section, with a clear emphasis of the novel aspects.

The variables and equations should be formatted more carefully (lines 112-114, 156-157 etc.)

Regarding: figures 3 and 5:

- the font size should be increased.

- the A power station has closed tailwater surge tank and tailwater gate shaft, while B power station has all the shafts and surge tanks open - use the same graphic representation

Replace forward/backward with further/closer or upstream/downstream from. 

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The significance of this research has to be clearly described. Are there accidents reported in the power plants? Why this research is necessary?

Which code has been adopted for this research? Commercial or seld-programmed code.

What is the novel achievement of this study?

You are talking about the Pumped Storage Power Station. How about the test and calculated results of start-stops in turbine mode and pumping mode, and turbine runaway? These transient processes are also very important.

English writing needs to be significantly improved. Some nonprofessional writing examples in the manuscript:

-The greater the distance is between the gate shaft and the inlet, the larger the maximum water level difference between the air hole and the gate shaft is.
-In Summary, the surge water level of the gate shaft....

- During the start-up and stoppage of turbines and the disturber of load, the transient process is complex in the long power tunnel... Unreadable


Conduct a rigorous reference search and cite all the important references worldwide but not just from Asia.

All graphics should be high quality with high resolution.

Clearly point out the location of the air hole in Figure 3 and Figure 5.

The parameters (power, head, discharge, rotating speed, etc.) of the units in the power station need to be clarified.

L181. The calculation results are consistent with the field test results, proving that
the calculation method is accurate.
That is not true according to Figure 4. Just showing a good agreement between the test and the simulation is questionable and not convincing. Please explain the reasons for the differences between the field test results and the calculated ones.

Conclusions are different from result discussions and have to be clearly and systematically described.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

processes-2228526-peer-review-v1

Water Level Fluctuation of the Air Hole of the Gate Shaft in the Pumped Storage Power Station.

This paper proposed a study on water level fluctuation of the air hole of the gate shaft in the pumped storage power station. Unfortunately, it cannot be accepted for publication mainly due to lack of significance and the poor written. To be specific,

(1) What is the main work and highlights of this paper when comparing with other existing works? The authors should describe them more clearly.

(2) The manuscript is not well written or well organized, and it is hard to follow. In the Introduction section, the authors just list the related works, without presenting them in a more manner for the readers. In addition, the proposed method for the considered problem in Section 3 is too simple to follow. More details should be given and discussed.

(3) The experimental studies are not enough to show the advantage of the proposed algorithm.

(4) Problem formulation starts with a typically unsteady flow in the pipe introduced by Wylie and Streeter [23], and some equations are described. Finally, a numerical example is presented.

I feel that although this may be a useful exercise, the paper does not come up to the international standards for publication. There is hardly any original contribution in this paper and it adds very little to the published literature.

In view of this, I do not recommend this paper for publication in any indexed journal.

***

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Thanks for the answers and improvement of the authors. Please add the structure of the paper (which section talks about what) at the end of Section Introduction.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

processes-2228526-peer-review-v2

Water Level Fluctuation of the Air Hole of the Gate Shaft in the Pumped Storage Power Station.

The author shares a study on water level fluctuation of the air hole of the gate shaft in the pumped storage power station. The topic itself is interesting. However, the article is poorly written, including issues in structuring, referencing, visualization, and many others.

Author should clarify the following:

Major Comments:

1.      Line 10, Abstract should have one sentence per each: context and background, motivation, hypothesis, methods, results, conclusions. What problem did you study and why is it important? What methods did you use? What were your main results? And what conclusions can you draw from your results? Please make your abstract with more specific and quantitative results while it suits broader audiences.

2.      Line 26, in Introduction, before starting the mentioned references, there is a need to add 8-9 lines related to the subject of the paper and write in general introduction. After that you should connect them with the references.

3.      The study-organizing paragraph is missing. The structure of the introduction section is not good. It should have two separate paragraphs at its end, one of which presents the contribution and explanations of this work; and the other one outlines the coming sections.

4.      Author has not developed the proposed methodology. As suggested by [25], the methodology of the proposed paper via equations (1) to (14), (17), (18), (20), (21) is used. The novelty of this study is limited. The contribution and novelty of this work are vague. Is there any novelty in modelling the gate shaft in the pumped storage power station?

5.      The manuscript is poorly structured. Why is a literature review jam-packed within the introduction and not presented as a standalone section?

6.      There is no result and discussion section in this paper!!!! The authors have finished the manuscript with conclusions!! Therefore, the introduction section remains unjustified and invalid.

7.      Convergence profiles of the methods should be presented and reviewed. What was the computational complexity of each method?

8.      In the conclusion section, please revise it and improve it by re-organizing it into one paragraph only including the suggested future work.

9.      Manuscript is poorly written and contains many grammatical errors. It needs to be rewritten and proofread for grammatical errors by a native English speaker.

Minor Comments:

10.  The texts written in Figures 4-6 are not clear and hence not readable.

***

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The author has addressed almost all my comments in a professional manner. The same are also implemented in the revised manuscript. As a reviewer, I am satisfied with the reply of my comments and concerns.

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

The Abstract has no information regarding the paper content - what is analysed, what is the purpose and which are the main outcomes. 

The text in lines 92-96 is an indication for authors from the manuscript template, an the authors must act as stated, not reproduce the text from the manuscript template.

The mathematical models should be presented more detailed for each case. Which are the flow conditions for each test model?

The instrumentation and the precision of the experimental data has to be detailed.

The contribution to the research subject is missing - what is the novelty of the paper?

Reviewer 2 Report

This work studies the water level fluctuation of the air hole of the gate shaft in pumped storage power stations. The work is with the meaning of engineering practices, and the topic is worth investigating.

 

Meanwhile, there are several problems and concerns for the current work:

 

1. The principle of the air hole of the gate shaft is not well given and described. How are the detailed flow conditions and flow directions? A clear problem description should be added.

 

2. The results simply show the water levels of simulations. However, how is the reason and mechanism behind? The deep analysis is weak, and it is suggested to further enhance.

 

3. The innovation is not well described, and the previous related works are not well compared.

 

4. The Figure 2 - Schematic of differential surge tank is not clear and hard to follow, and it should be redrawn.