24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

felicity6056

至尊木虫 (知名作家)

应助: 6 (幼儿园)
贵宾: 0.033
金币: 10185
散金: 389
红花: 6
帖子: 6696
在线: 1053.4小时
虫号: 762546
注册: 2009-05-04
专业: 化石能源储存与输送

[交流] 文章审稿意见回来了，请虫子们帮忙看看意见是正面的还是负面的？已有11人参与

Combining a 20-steps reduced mechanism and CFD code, this paper predicts the ethylene/air combustion and soot formation. The results show that this 20-steps reduced mechanism can provide results with the similar accuracy and less CPU times with the detailed reaction model. This paper also analyzes how the soot nucleation, growth, oxidation is influenced by air velocity and temperature. All these indicate that the authors did a lot of work in this area.
Some suggestions are as follows:
1. The authors should clarify how many species are assumed in quasi-steady state? If the detailed mechanism is reduced too far, that is, too many species are assumed in quasi-steady state, the input problem results will not be well reproduced. Please add some explanations on this point.
2. In “3 validation of reduced chemistry” part (Fig4, 5), authors need to compare the 20-steps reduced mechanism results with the data by Gibbs, Law or Scholte too, not only limited to comparison with GRI 3.0? It would make the paper more convictive. Moreover, the unit scales of left and right y axis in Fig.2, 4(b) and 5 are not consistent, which make readers confused.
3. In 4.3 results part, please interpret the reasons why the parameters (temperature, soot nucleation rate, growth rate and oxidation rate) appear different distributions in the three cases calculated at different equivalence rates and air velocities. Although the distribution of the results are described in detail, the difference and the reasons are little demonstrated.

回复此楼