| 查看: 993 | 回复: 1 | |||
07dongbei铁杆木虫 (正式写手)
|
[交流]
Powder Technology 初稿意见回来了 大修 大家看看 已有1人参与
|
|
Powder Technology 初稿意见一个月回来了，需要大修 ，大家看看审稿人的意见，看看希望大吗？ Reviewer #1: 1) Equation 4: Cμ is an empirical constant in the turbulent viscosity formulation. A value of 0.09 is valid for most of the cases. Why the value of Cμ was reduced? 2) Equation 17 - 19: The text to these equations should be referenced to equation 12, not to equation 17. 3) Bubbles bounce off: This paper regards 0.16 as the relative critical Weber number. Is it a constant value? It would be more convenient for the reader to have the assumptions and information leading to this value of 0.16 written in the text, not only given by references. 4) Bubble break-up: For an air-water system the critical Weber number is written to be 1.3. It should be mentioned that this value was used to simulate the bubble break up for argon - steel melt systems. Is the critical weber number of 1.3 valid for such systems? 5) Table 1: Geometrical and process parameters: Material parameters should be referenced. 6) 3. Simulation details and boundary conditions: "In this paper, the three dimensional calculation area was meshed by diving some domains to reduce the false diffusion in the process of numerical simulation and improve the accuracy of the simulation." What is meant by "diving some domains". Could you please explain this sentence more in detail? 7) 3. Simulation details and boundary conditions: At the walls in and outside the SEN, bubbles were modeled to be caught in the paper. "Caught" means, if bubbles hit the wall of the SEN they will vanish from the simulation domain. However, in the upper parts of the nozzle ports there is normally an accumulation of bubbles. Due to the DPM "caught" boundary condition most of them will vanish and are not able to coalescence. By using reflecting boundary conditions in the SEN the coalescence of bubbles in these regions would be even higher. 8) Equation 21 and 22: m is defined as the "quality of bubbles" in the text. What do you mean by quality? Reviewer #2: Points In Favor: 1. The authors presented an interesting paper linking the process 。 Points Detracting: A. Referencing comments： 1. The amount of references is small. However, many of them are missing or too old. 2. There are many important papers about the bubble size distribution inside the SEN or mold. For example, (1. G.G. Lee, B.G. Thomas, and S.H. Kim: Met. Mater. Int., 2010, vol. 16, pp.501-06. 2. A. Ramos-Banderas, R.D. Morales, R. Sanchez-Perez, L. Garcia-Demedices, and G. Solorio-Diaz: Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 2005, vol. 31, pp. 643-65. 3. Y.J. Kwon, J. Zhang, and H.G. Lee: ISIJ Int., 2006, vol. 46, pp. 257-66. 4. Q. Yuan, T. Shi, S. P. Vanka, and B.G. Thomas: Computational Modeling of Materials, Minerals and Metals Processing, Warrendale, PA, 2001, pp. 491-500.) 3. You should search more articles to support your paper. B. "2. Governing equations and models" 1. there are only drag force and virtual mass force included in your numerical model. but some other forces(especially for lift force, Turbulent dispersion force) are also important for "two phase flow". why not be considered? 2. it is difficult for us to understant your model, you should add a model tree to explain it. 3. I think this description of your model is wrong. C. it is missing "Validation of model". I can not conform it is right, because there is not experimental data to prove it. D. For paper of mathermatical model, some parameter study should be included, for example, casting speed, argon volume fraction, and so on. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
售SCI一区文章，我:8O5.5.1.O5.4,科目全,可伽急
已经有6人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有9人回复
-
售一区SCI文章T0P，我:8O.551.O54,科目全,可十急
已经有5人回复
-
售SCI-T0P文章，我:8O.5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有10人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急
已经有12人回复
-
售一区SCI文章T0P，我:8O.551.O54,科目全,可十急
已经有16人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急
已经有20人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8O.55.1.O.54,科目全,可伽急
已经有12人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8O5.5.1.O5.4,科目全,可伽急
已经有11人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有8人回复
2楼2014-09-16 21:42:40
