Design and Optimization of γ-Shaped Settlement Training Wall Based on Numerical Simulation and CCD-Response Surface Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper proposed a r-shape settlement training wall design to improve the flow velocity uniformity of the joint hub of the pump station and sluice under different operational conditions. This paper is qualified for publishing in the Processes journal, considering it provides an adjustable settlement training wall design to improve the inflow uniformity that is more universally applicable in reality. The authors elaborated and provided adequate details for experimental and other modeling data to validate the proposed design. However, there are some issues with the manuscript that can be improved/need to be addressed:
- Line 54, period mistakenly placed before subordinate clauses
- Typo of scientific notation on lines 182 – 184?
- What is the meaning of the parameters on line 205?
- A long sentence that can be broken into shorter pieces for readers to understand better (e.g., lines 292 - 298)
- Lines 301 -303 & lines 319 -321 say the F values demonstrate the model significance. Shouldn’t it be the p-value that reflects the model's significance?
- Lines 446 – 472 repeat contents from lines 416 – 443.
- Line 508 indicates that the r-shape settling wall can significantly enhance velocity uniformity. It needs more evidence to state the enhancement is “significant.”
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript titled "Design and Optimization of γ-Shaped Settlement Training Wall Based on CCD-Response Surface Method" is very interesting. It is my opinion that the manuscript could be published in Processes, but there are a few issues that should be addressed:
Abstract:
------------
* The manuscript is not clearly written. For example, the first sentence is too long (lines 7 to 11). It is recommended to split the sentence or add commas.
* The "...and...and..." pattern makes sentences too long and confusing. This pattern is used throughout the entire manuscript and should be avoided.
* What is the conclusion or the main finding?
#1
----
* Line 27: "...,due ...form, ... the actual operation". This sentence is confusing. Is the second comma necessary?
* Line 4: "pier. which" Please, carefully proof-read the manuscript.
* Lines 63 to 69: Again, this sentence is too long. In my opinion, there are missing commas. For example: "...angle, which...", "the project (?) and"
* For consistency, Are Y-shaped and y-shaped the same configuration?
#2
----
* Figure 2: The units are omitted.
* For consistency, Figures 3, 4, and 5 should have the same view.
#3
----
* To what does "horizontal comparison" refer?
* Figure 7 and the calculated grid number given in Line 160 do not correspond to each other. Why?
* To what does "standard wall function" refer? What values of y+ are obtained?
* How was the y+ parameter estimated? Moreover, the boundary layer should be described in detail.
* Images showing the mesh are missing. In my opinion, Images showing the boundary layer are needed.
#4
----
* Do all simulations have the same mesh size?
* Are the results compared to experimental data?
* In my opinion, and according to Figure 14.c, the size of the mesh cells seems excessive. Are those results as expected?
* The range of the values in the color maps should be adjusted to be the same. Regarding Figures 8 and 9, this may not be possible. However, It is recommended with the rest of the figures.
# References
-----------------
The DOI (digital object identifier) should be included if it is available.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
- More suitable title should be selected for the article.
- The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone.
- It is suggested to present the structure of the article at the end of the introduction.
- The major defect of this study is the debate or Argument is not clear stated in the introduction session. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the author to enhance your theoretical discussion and arrives your debate or argument.
- Methods section determines the results. Kindly focus on three basic elements of the methods section.
a. How the study was designed?
b. How the study was carried out?
c. How the data were analyzed?
- It is suggested to compare the results of the present research with some similar studies which is done before.
- It is suggested to add articles entitled “Al-Mansori et al. The Effects of Different Shaped Baffle Blocks on the Energy Dissipation”, “Yamini et al. Performance of Hydrodynamics Flow on Flip Buckets Spillway for Flood Control in Large Dam Reservoirs” and “Al-Mansori & Al-Zubaidi. One-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Modeling of the Euphrates River and Prediction of Hydraulic Parameters” to the literature review.
- More suitable title should be selected for the table 3 instead of “Test results of CCD-Response Surface Method (Operational state of pumping).”.
Page 13: the following paragraph is unclear, so please reorganize that:
“Likewise, as shown in Figure 11, factors arc radius R3 of curved part III and center angle θ3 of curved part III were selected to investigate their degrees of influence on the variation of the uniformity of velocity distribution of the admission section in front of 7# sluice in the operational state of free-draining.”
- Much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the Results, which are not enough.
- Please make sure your conclusions' section underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part into more details. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The article has been revised very well, so I would suggest to accept in its present form.
