Detection of Partial Blockages in Pressurized Pipes by Transient Tests: A Review of the Physical Experiments
, Filomena Maietta 1,*,†, Caterina Capponi 1,†, Huan-Feng Duan 2,†and Silvia Meniconi 1,†Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study about “Detection of partial blockages in pressurised pipes by transient tests. A review of the physical experiments” is presented in a nice way but for the publication of this research work following points need to be addressed.
1. The abstract and introduction section need to improve.
2. Novelty of the work should be highlighted in abstract
3. Mathematical equations need to include for the computation of fluid flow through pipe
4. Results from experimental work and computational fluid dynamics need to be compare
5. Grammatical errors need to be corrected
6. Main findings of the study should be included in conclusion
This review study is recommended for publication after the minor revision.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer #1
The study about “Detection of partial blockages in pressurized pipes by transient tests. A review of the physical experiments” is presented in a nice way but for the publication of this research work following points need to be addressed.
R: We thank a lot Reviewer #1 for the attention she/he devoted to our paper as well as her/his positive comments. In the revised version we tried to address the requested issues.
- The abstract and introduction section need to improve.
R: In the revised version we tried to improve both the abstract and introduction.
- Novelty of the work should be highlighted in abstract.
R: See the above reply.
- Mathematical equations need to include for the computation of fluid flow through pipe
R: According to such a suggestion, in the revised version we added Section 2 “Mechanism of interaction between pressure wave and partial blockage (PB)” where we reported the governing equations and the analytical expression of the pressure wave reflected by both “discrete” and “extended” partial blockages with some explanatory figures.
- Results from experimental work and computational fluid dynamics need to be compare
R: Such an issue is of absolute interest. However, it is clearly out of the scope of this paper that concerns the analysis of the physical experimental results to address future experimental research.
- Grammatical errors need to be corrected
R: We tried to improve the revised version from the grammatical point of view.
- Main findings of the study should be included in conclusion
R: In the revised version we tried to improve the Conclusions by pointing out the main findings.
This review study is recommended for publication after the minor revision.
R: Thank you again for the attention you paid to our work.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The reviewer's comments are in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer #2
Among several methods for detecting partial blockages (PB) in pipelines, this paper focuses on methods using unsteady-state pressure measurements, i.e., transient test-based techniques (TTBT). This paper reviews the TTBL method based on measured data from published papers.
R: We thank Reviewer #2 for the attention she/he paid to our paper. In the revised version we tried to address the requested issues.
- This paper is a review of the TTBT method, which has few actual measurements. However, as long as this paper is a review article, it should describe various methods to inspect or measure partial pipeline blockages. The characteristics of the various methods (a brief description of the principle of the method, what is being measured, the accuracy of the measurement, cost, etc.) and the number of experimental cases using the method should be presented first.
R: In principle, we agree with Reviewer #2. However, the analysis of the available methods for PB detection is beyond the aims of this paper. In the revised version, we added Section 2 “Mechanism of interaction between pressure wave and partial blockage (PB)” where we reported the governing equations and the analytical expression of the pressure wave reflected by both “discrete” and “extended” partial blockages with some explanatory figures. Available experimental cases are presented soon in the paper (see Tables 2 and 3 in the Introduction).
- The TTBT is one of the few methods among the various inspection methods for PB in pipelines, and it is clear from the survey conducted in comment 1. The authors must clearly state the reason why they chose TTBT as the subject of this study. In order to state the reason, it is necessary to explain again the more detailed measurement principle, characteristics, measurement accuracy, cost, etc. of TTBL with figures.
R: In the revised version, we discussed in details the principles on which TTBTs are based (see the above reply to issue #1). The measurement accuracy is that of the measured pressure and depends on the characteristics of the used sensor. The analysis of the cost is beyond of the aims of the paper that wants to present the available physical data to address future research. We are sorry but the meaning of the acronym “TTBL” is not clear.
- This paper classifies and arranges 18 examples of TTBL implementation measurements, which are few and far between.
R: We fully agree but this is the situation.
The categorized data may provide good information for prospective TTBL users to know in what areas TTBL is best suited for use. However, the 18 examples span the period from 1965 to 2020. If the TTBL measurement technology had advanced during this period, the name TTBL would be TTBL, but the content would be completely different. The authors must describe the technological advances in TTBL during that period. 18 examples must be analyzed, including the technological advances in TTBL. The analysis may be difficult. However, without this analysis, this paper would be nothing more than a collection of categorized data on TTBL applications.
R: Reviewer #2 is completely right: the aim of this paper is to present the available physical results of transient tests executed in pipe systems with a partial blockage to address future research. As TTBTs are simply based on the measurement of the transient pressure signal, advances are in the area of the analysis of the pressure signal that is beyond the aim of this paper.
- The classification of TTBL measurement cases should be summarized as a classification. However, as long as this paper is a review article, it is better to select the characteristic measurement results from the classified TTBL measurement cases and describe the characteristics of the results using specific figures.
R: In our opinion, the classification of the available physical experiments is given through Tables 1, 2 and 3. We addressed such an issue by adding Section 2 (see the above reply to issue #1).
- Fill in the table of symbols and abbreviations
R: In the revised version, we added the “List of symbols”.
- In title: Pressurised → _Pressurized
R: Done, both in the title and throughout the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Throughout the text: There are no cement pipes. Cement is a binder that is used production of, among other materials, a concrete.
Line 25, Instead of "In case of wate" - should be "In case of water"
Line 33: In liquid pipelines? Pipelines are not made of liquid. Please, change the wording
Lines 40-42 - exclusion criteria should be laid out as a itemized list. It is much easier to read.
Lines 55-59 - Same as above.
Line 91 - On the contrary... - On the contrary to what? Lack of experiments with PVC and concrete pipes do not imply the opposite fact or condition that is laid out in the previous sentence.
Line 95 - Same as above.
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer #3
In the revised version we tried to address the requested issues.
Throughout the text: There are no cement pipes. Cement is a binder that is used production of, among other materials, a concrete.
R: We thank a lot Reviewer #3 for such a comment.
Line 25, Instead of "In case of wate" - should be "In case of water"
R: Done. Thank you a lot for pointing out such a typo.
Line 33: In liquid pipelines? Pipelines are not made of liquid. Please, change the wording
R: Reviewer #3 is completely right. In the revised version, we changed the wording.
Lines 40-42 - exclusion criteria should be laid out as a itemized list. It is much easier to read.
R: Done.
Lines 55-59 - Same as above.
R: In the revised version, we added Table 1.
Line 91 - On the contrary... - On the contrary to what? Lack of experiments with PVC and concrete pipes do not imply the opposite fact or condition that is laid out in the previous sentence.
R: Done. Thank a lot for pointing out such an improper expression.
Line 95 - Same as above.
R: Done. Thank a lot for pointing out such an improper expression.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
