Sources of the Measurement Error of the Impact Pressure in Sloshing Experiments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
the paper contains an interesting description of a series of experiments which probably deserve more reflection before publishing in order to make the conclusions stronger please review the comments in the PDF uploaded as general comment please see below there is no quantification of the temperature of the sensors, in the text the authors affirm that the average temperature different between the sensor and the air was 2.1degs but it is not explained how this temperature is measured, this is a crucial point to then assess the magnitude of the thermal shock if any it is not really explained if the authors believe that the difference in pressure between the dry and wet realisation of the experiments is attributed to the thermal shock of the sensor (in that case it does not have anything to do with sloshing pressures) or to the presence of droplets, in this last case this would be a physical phenomena which would then lead to the discussion of if this would happen at different scale and with different liquids as well or notComments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her support and constructive comments. All comments are implemented in the revised manuscript. The rebuttals on each comment were noted in the pdf file. Please check the sticker notes in yellow.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments:
1. The quality of all images should be improved as the content is unreadable in some cases (e.g. Figure 1).
2. Sub-section 2.6 (line 153ff.): Did the authors analyze the raw data without any filtering or offset corrections? The described procedure seams incomplete and in this way not sufficient to discuss errors caused by boundaries like the sensor boundary or sensor temperature.
3. The authors refer to the two test conditions “T1” and “T2” in the analysis and discussion of the results (e.g. line 222). It is not easy for the reader to distinguish between the two cases. It would be helpful to rename the cases with a clear denotation like e.g. “sway” or “pitch” or in case of focus of difference in the excitation period “T1.1s” and “T1.2s”.
4. In chapter 3.3.1. the authors discuss pressures measured at different sensors. A transfer to the geometry/layout of the box itself is missing. Instead of giving the sensor number the authors should give positions relative to the box dimensions (e.g. distance from the side wall relative to the whole width of the box). This would provide a uniform insight.
5. In chapter 3.3.2 the effect of thermal shocks is discussed. If it is already known that differences in air and water have an influence, why have the authors not conducted a test series with equal temperature in water and air?
6. The authors should discuss the influence of the chosen model scale and the transferability of the findings to prototype scale as the provided study seems to be in a comparable small scale and the results are probably affected by influences of e.g. surface tension or viscosity.
7. Figure captions should be improved to that they provide complete relevant information of the figure content (e.g. Figure 26: meaning of the red circles only given in the full text but not in the figure caption). Please carefully check for all figures.
8. Figure 28-31: Please provide complete axis information for all three axis (e.g. the distances between the individual sensors).
9. The conclusion section is written quite generally. The authors should provide quantifications of their findings including an assessment of the importance to consider the respective effects in the data analysis. If the effects should be considered, it should be stated how or which tasks to follow.
Detailed comments are listed in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her support and constructive comments. All comments are implemented in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have clearly replied to all questions and have improved several content of the paper. Some text editing is still required.
