Flow at an Ogee Crest Axis for a Wide Range of Head Ratios: Theoretical Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have provided editorial suggestions in the PDF file, primarily in the introduction and background sections, and in the discussion and conclusions.  The central portions of the paper are well written, but also very intense analytically and mathematically.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Reviewer 2 Report

Kindly recommendations for the manuscript improvement

Please, generally check the references in the manuscript.

For example:

In line 100, a reference is missing, i.e. "Fawer […]".

At the beginning of line 173, where the reference "Castro-Orgaz" is given, please give the correct form for this reference in accordance with the "References" list of the manuscript, i.e. "Castro-Orgaz and Hager [7]" or "Castro-Orgaz [28]" or "Castro-Orgaz [34]".

Concerning the style of the references in the text, in line 278 the reference "Peltier et al." is given at the end of the sentence, i.e. the number [15], while the same reference, i.e. [15], in line 286 is given as "Peltier et al. [15]", following directly the author's name. The same style is followed in line 273, where the reference number is given at the end of the sentence, i.e. [24]. Please check, which is the acceptable style for the references in the text of the manuscript.

Line 112: Is the term "unit discharge q" the same with the term "specific discharge q"?

In Figure 3, please give the direction of u, v velocities, i.e. u, v vectors.

I kindly recommend in section 2.1.3 of the manuscript the subsections, namely a, b, c, d, e to be renamed to 2.1.3.1., 2.1.3.2., 2.1.3.3., 2.1.3.4., 2.1.3.5., respectively.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article presents an analytical method to calculate the flow coefficient above an ogee weir. It focuses particularly on the influence of the modification of the upstream head on the discharge coefficient. The method is compared with experimental results from the literature to validate it and show its interest in practical cases. I think that knowledge of the evolution of the flow coefficient with the head is an essential question for the design of these structures. Thus the publication of this article is recommended. I have no particular remarks on the substance of the work because the equations are well described as well as the hypotheses. However, the length of the theoretical part and the feedback between types of weirs can hinder understanding. Therefore, I propose the following minor revisions:

- Reduce the theoretical part by appending certain paragraphs (Curvilinear coordinate system). We can also suggest combining “Conservation principles” and “Dimensionless quantities and design head”. The results (67) to (73) can be put in a table.

- Put more forward that the novelty of the work is based on the hypothesis of the velocity profile eq. (16)

-correct typo L 437 (0section)

-equation (76) is h0 defined before?

- equation (98) shows a physical interpretation of delta (deviation from uniformity) which should be mentioned before its definition.

-Figure 9, "Theoritical model" does it come from the sharp crested calculation, if so, specify it.

- figure 11 put the legend on the graph.

 -L 803: Can we evoke similar tracks for the calculation on other thresholds. What should we do first?

- Can you specify the interest of the method compared to that of Jaeger for design cases. Are the knowledge of the height on the crest and the pressure important in practical cases?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf