FLACS-Based Simulation of Combustible Gases Leaked from the Pressure Device for the Optimizing of Gas Detectors’ Setup
Hassan Saghi
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article ‘’ FLACS-based gas leakage simulation of natural gas from pressure device for the layout of combustible gas detectors’’ is interested article, however, it major changes. At many places authors have very basic and minor level mistakes, which should not be in any research paper. Moreover the technical, novel side of the paper is very week. The authors should first address the basic components of the paper and then it might be easy and fruitful for the reviewer to give some technical feedback. Following is the basic / initial feedback / comments for the authors for the improvement of the article and then it can be reviewed further based on the general structure of the research paper is OK or the article can be considered for the rejection / further revision :
1. The article title is more like the statement, authors are suggested to re-write the title with the research impact and novelty perspective.
2. The start of the abstract line 1 is too long. Authors must avoid such long sentences and must check it throughout the article.
3. Also, the 1st line sentence structure and meaning are confused. Authors should start the abstract with the straightforward problem statement.
4. In the second line authors jumps quickly to the results, it is recommended to first define the principle / mechanism of the set up and/or parameters etc. and then to draw some results.
5. There should be some statistical figured values in the abstract which can quantify the research / optimization and it can make readership of the journal easy.
6. Abstract needs to re-write as it is not clear and number of abstract components are missing. There should be some proper synchronization of the sentences in meaningful way.
7. The abstract should also include the solution of the problem based on the problem statement with some particular application/s.
8. Authors should first define any abbreviation before its use as full form and then in the article, they are allowed to use abbreviation i.e. IPCC. This must be ensured throughout the article.
9. Authors should use proper subscript and superscript and this must also be ensured throughout the article.
1. There should be space before the reference and the last word of the statement. This is very common and authors must have these kind of basic knowledge.
1. At multiple places authors have given lump sum references e.g. [4-8] and at many other places in the introduction section as well. This must be avoided and maximum 2 references for a statement should be fine.
1. Also, there are only 25 references and it is not as per the standards research papers. Authors needs to meet the minimum standards of the research papers.
1. The graphics of the results are better, but the description of the results and its logics are totally missing and authors must consider results again.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The novelty of the paper must be mentioned in the paper.
How the model was validated. Please explain it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors present a simulation study on gas leakages in a hydrocarbon steam reformer with the aim to advise on suitable locations for gas sensor placement. The method is clearly described and the application scenarios realistic. Yet in some points the manuscript needs to be improved in my opinion, which are:
- please check that all abbreviations are spelled out the first time they occur (concerns esp. FLACS and CFD)
- use either CO2 or carbon dioxide, but not mixed
- lines 97/98, lines 254-256, lines 282/283, lines 335/336 : sentences don't make sense
lines 134-137: why are the dimensions given here in feet when all others are in m?
- almost all figures: please make sure that the text/numbers in the figures can be read! This is often way too small!
Table 1/Fig. 3, Table 2/Fig. 5, Table 3/Fig. 7 present the same data! So please omit either the tables or the figures.
- please check figure captions again! In many figures there is just 1 sentence which does not sufficiently explain what the figure shows.
- conclusions are just a list of the results. Please rewrite.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for your work. I enjoyed reading it. I would suggest you address the following issues to improve quality.
1. Please make a thorough check of English grammar and other common issues. For example, Page 1 (line 26), "The" has been used in the wrong case. it will be lower case. Such issues are found throughout the paper. I have marked many other issues like this. Please take care of these and check the whole manuscript properly.
2. Introduction is informative. However, some of the paragraphs are unusually lengthy. You should divide them into smaller paragraphs.
3. Reading the conclusion, I felt like you were in a hurry. The contents are fine. However, without writing any premises, just numbering the observations or outcomes is non-trivial. Please reformat this section.
3. FLACS is one of the most widely used tools for CFD (Page 3 Line 119). You cannot say that this is the most widely used. Perhaps I see people using ANSYS Fluent or CFX more than FLACS. Please revise the statement.
4. The last statement on the first page of the Introduction needs to be modified. You have mentioned the losses in a certain accident site. However, due to the external domino effect, it often escalates beyond a specific site. You may get some details in the following references.
i. An external domino effects investment approach to improve cross-plant safety within chemical clusters (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.12.013)
ii. Domino effect: Its prediction and prevention—An overview (https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.mcps.2021.05.001)
Overall, I liked the modelling approach and detail of different weather conditions which are of great importance.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have tried to address comments, but still there are few minor mistakes related to grammer and structure in the manuscript. so the article can be considered for publication.
Author Response
Many thanks for the valuable suggestion.
We have carefully examined grammatical structure and contextual expressions in the revised version.
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion, the paper can be accepted in its present form.
Author Response
We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article.
Reviewer 3 Report
Many thanks to the authors for their revision. However, I'm still not satisfied with the quality of the figures. In Fig. 1, what is PSA? Must be in the caption. In fig. 2, where are MP 33 and MP34? The numbers in the graph are so small and blurry that it's impossible to find. The same with Figs 5 and 6, the numbers next to the scale are small and blurry. And since it's always the same scale, why do you insert it in every graph and not just once? This would save space and give the reader the chance to see everything correctly.
Author Response
Many thanks for the valuable suggestion.
In Fig 1, we added the process descrimination of Pressure swing adsorption (PSA). The Fig 2 have been redrawn to show the monitors more clearly and added the MP 33 and MP 34 in it. We also revised the other pictures that may be too small and blurry to found.
Reviewer 4 Report
Article should be accepted
Author Response
We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article.
