| 查看: 904 | 回复: 1 | |||
| 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 | |||
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
投稿Elsevier的Neoplasia杂志，到最后选publishing options时页面空白，不能完成投稿
已经有22人回复
-
申请26博士
已经有5人回复
-
职称评审没过，求安慰
已经有22人回复
-
垃圾破二本职称评审标准
已经有15人回复
-
EST投稿状态问题
已经有7人回复
-
毕业后当辅导员了，天天各种学生超烦
已经有4人回复
-
聘U V热熔胶研究人员
已经有10人回复
-
求助文献
已经有3人回复
-
投稿返修后收到这样的回复，还有希望吗
已经有8人回复
-
三无产品还有机会吗
已经有6人回复