Apparatus Development for the Measurement of the Thermal Conductivity of Geothermal Backfill Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

please consider the following remarks.

1. Line 22-24. The text looks not like scientific, but like popular science. There is no new information for the reader here. This part of the text can be significantly reduced.

2. The equation is part of the text of the article. The equation must be followed by a punctuation mark, such as a comma or period.

3. The list of references is too short. It would be better if the author of the article reviewed more publications, especially 2022. The following is a list of publications to which the author could refer. This is not a recommended list, it is only information for the author.

Cardoso de Freitas Murari, M., de Hollanda Cavalcanti Tsuha, C., Loveridge, F.
Investigation on the thermal response of steel pipe energy piles with different backfill materials
(2022) Renewable Energy, 199, pp. 44-61.
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2022.08.105

Dong, S., Liu, G., Zhan, T., Yao, Y., Ni, L.
Performance study of cement-based grouts based on testing and thermal conductivity modeling for ground-source heat pumps
(2022) Energy and Buildings, 272, art. no. 112351.
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112351

Wang, S., Li, Y., Wu, L., He, X., Jian, L., Chen, Q.
Investigation on thermal conductivity property and hydration mechanism of graphene-composite cement for geothermal exploitation
(2022) Geothermics, 104, art. no. 102477.
DOI: 10.1016/j.geothermics.2022.102477

Liang, B., Chen, M., An Fu, B., Guan, J.
Thermal and flow characteristics in a vertical spiral-type ground heat exchanger based on linear non-equilibrium thermodynamic principle
(2022) Energy and Buildings, 266, art. no. 112111.
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112111

Lee, S., Park, S., Ahn, D., Choi, H.
Thermal performance of novel cast-in-place energy piles equipped with multipurpose steel pipe heat exchangers (SPHXs)
(2022) Geothermics, 102, art. no. 102389.
DOI: 10.1016/j.geothermics.2022.102389

Menegazzo, D., Lombardo, G., Bobbo, S., De Carli, M., Fedele, L.
State of the Art, Perspective and Obstacles of Ground‐Source Heat Pump Technology in the European Building Sector: A Review
(2022) Energies, 15 (7), art. no. 2685, . 
DOI: 10.3390/en15072685

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

Thank you very much for your careful review and constructive suggestions with regard to our manuscript “Apparatus development for measuring the thermal conductivity of geothermal backfill materials” (2129710). Those comments are helpful to revise and improve our paper.

We have made changes in the manuscript according to the comments provided by the reviewers. The revised content is marked in the manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the comments are as follows:

Reviewer #1:

Kindly find the following comments to improve the quality of the research.

Editor and Reviewer comments:

 

General Comments:

 

General Comments 1: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.

Response General Comments 1: Sorry for our English. Authors have revised the language. However, we haven´t had time for a native technical person reviews the manuscript.

 

General Comments 2: Introduction must be improved.

Response General Comments 2: Line 22-24 have been eliminated.

 

General Comments 3: References can be improved.

Response General Comments 3: Three new references have been included.

 

Specific Comments:

 

Question 1: Line 22-24. The text looks not like scientific, but like popular science. There is no new information for the reader here. This part of the text can be significantly reduced.

Response 1: Line 22-24 have been eliminated.

 

Question 2: The equation is part of the text of the article. The equation must be followed by a punctuation mark, such as a comma or period.

Response 2: It has been changed (see inventions-2129710. Manuscript with track changes marked).

 

Question 3: The list of references is too short. It would be better if the author of the article reviewed more publications, especially 2022.

Response 3: Three new references have been included. The paper of Dong et al. (2022) is very interesting because they used a similar device to us, but its apparatus was heavier than ours. They used this apparatus to characterize geothermal grouts.

We are very grateful to reviewer 1 for his 6 specific and general questions about writing that will significantly improve the level of this article. We've made careful changes by the reviewer 1's request. However, I do not know whether my responses to these questions will satisfy editor and reviewer 1. If editor and reviewer 1 are not satisfied with my responses to these questions or have other questions, I can still continue to make changes and I hope editor and reviewer 1 can give me another chance to make changes. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The author should give more theoretical calculation based on the results derived from the experiment.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

Thank you very much for your careful review and constructive suggestions with regard to our manuscript “Apparatus development for measuring the thermal conductivity of geothermal backfill materials” (2129710). Those comments are helpful to revise and improve our paper.

We have made changes in the manuscript according to the comments provided by the reviewers. The revised content is marked in the manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the comments are as follows:

Reviewer #2:

Kindly find the following comments to improve the quality of the research.

General Comments:

 

General Comments 1: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.

Response General Comments 1: Sorry for our English. Authors have revised the language. However, we haven´t had time for a native technical person review the manuscript.

General Comments 2: Results can be improved.

Response General Comments 2: Results have been improved.

General Comments 3: Conclusions can be improved.

Response General Comments 3: Conclusions have been improved.

Specific Comments:

Question 1: The author should give more theoretical calculation based on the results derived from the experiment.

Response to question 1: Authors show the results to prove the reliable.

The measurement equipment designed was used to carry out hundreds of samples of which results were previously published in [1]. It has been added in lines 214-219.

As a result of the fitting regression the result of thermal conductivity is 0.1424 (0.1391,0.1457) W/m∙K (R2=0.9902 with 95% confidence bounds) which is lower than 10%  the value declared by the manufacturer (0.13 W/m∙K) of the sample (Table 1).

 [1]. C. Castán-Fernández, G. Marcos-Robredo, M.P. Castro-García, M.A. Rey-Ronco, T. Alonso-Sánchez (2022). Development of a dry mortar with nanosilica and different types of industrial waste for the application in borehole heat exchangers. Construction and Building Materials 359, 129511,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.129511

We are very grateful to reviewer 2 for his 4 specific and general questions about writing that will significantly improve the level of this article. We've made careful changes by the reviewer 2's request. However, I do not know whether my responses to these questions will satisfy editor and reviewer 2. If editor and reviewer 2 are not satisfied with my responses to these questions or have other questions, I can still continue to make changes and I hope editor and reviewer 2 can give me another chance to make changes. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Interesting work on the development of equipment to measure thermal conductivity in samples produced by mixture with components at different states, compact or powder
The work is well developed and I have the following brief notes:
1. Page 6, after equation 4 to add the units of measurement of the dimentions - q, To and etc.
2. To table 8 - Is the sensitivity of the K-type thermocouple the same throughout the temperature range of the measurement? Are there limits on the lowest or highest temperatures?

The work is suitable for publication with minimal corrections.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

Thank you very much for your careful review and constructive suggestions with regard to our manuscript “Apparatus development for measuring the thermal conductivity of geothermal backfill materials” (2129710). Those comments are helpful to revise and improve our paper.

We have made changes in the manuscript according to the comments provided by the reviewers. The revised content is marked in the manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the comments are as follows:

Reviewer #3:

Kindly find the following comments to improve the quality of the research.

Editor and Reviewer comments:

 

Interesting work on the development of equipment to measure thermal conductivity in samples produced by mixture with components at different states, compact or powder. The work is well developed and I have the following brief notes:

 

Question 1: Page 6, after equation 4 to add the units of measurement of the dimentions - q, To and etc.

Response to question 1: It has been added.

 

Question 2: To table 8 - Is the sensitivity of the K-type thermocouple the same throughout the temperature range of the measurement?

Response to question 2: According to k-type calibration the sensitivity is the same between -100 to +100ºC.

Question 3: To table 8 - Are there limits on the lowest or highest temperatures? Las pruebas oscilan entre 20 y 100ºC y están dentro de los límites de medida del sensor.

Response to question 3: Experiments are made in range between 20-100ºC, so they are in limits of sensor measurement.

We are very grateful to reviewer 3 for his 3 specific and general questions about writing that will significantly improve the level of this article. We've made careful changes by the reviewer 3's request. However, I do not know whether my responses to these questions will satisfy editor and reviewer 3. If editor and reviewer 3 are not satisfied with my responses to these questions or have other questions, I can still continue to make changes and I hope editor and reviewer 3 can give me another chance to make changes. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx