Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
by
  • Hyoung Tae Kim* and
  • Jongtae Kim

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Roberto Palos Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of this paper, the modeling of hydrogen distribution with PAR and containment sprays is interesting, and considering the SPARC facility, the use of this facility to validate MELCOR is useful.  However, the paper is not written well, and both English language problems and technical presentation mistakes make this paper inadequate to publish in this journal.   If a major revision to fix the English language problems, lack of specificity and focus, and missing data/explanations is undertaken, this paper would be of high value and worthy of publishing in this journal.   Below are some examples of these challenges.  This is not an exhaustive list, and a careful review and revision of this paper should take place.

1) In line 11, estimate is used, where this is a validation or benchmark, not an estimation

2)  In the abstract, the statement "well in agreement" is used.   Specific values, trends, or numbers to describe this "Agreement" must be used.   The lack of specificity takes away from the conclusions.

3) In line 44, a 3-D analysis code is mentioned as part of the study, but no reference to this code is ever made again.  Which code?  Was it part of this paper?  If not, specify this or take this reference out.

4) In line 45, an oblique reference to the advantages of the different code is made, but no specific advantages are discussed.  Why not?  Give specific and concrete advantages, rather than just generally stating that there are unique advantages. 

5)In line 63, MELCOR is mis-spelled.

6)Lines 89-91 describe limitation of the free volume in the SPARC vessel, but no specific dimensions, angles, or restrictions are mentioned.  It is simply a general implication that limitations or special conditions exist, but it is not clear what is meant here.

6) In Line 152, it is mentioned that "thermocouples are installed at various locations" with not specific locations, figures, or diagrams included.   This is not an acceptable description of the experimental facilities, especially considering the importance of the temperature on the results.

Again, this list is not exhaustive, but illustrative of the problems that plague this paper.   Please carefully review and correct all of the problems listed here, plus the others in the paper, then resubmit for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

The authors fully appreciate the reviewer’s comment to improve the quality of this paper. According to his(or her) suggestion, we revised the preliminary manuscript step by step.

Please see the attachment for my answers to all reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have tested a PAR and spray system in the simulation of a hydrogen mitigation system of the SPARC test facility. Furthermore, they have compared the experimental data with those estimated with MELCOR predictions. The authors have faced an interesting research topic barely studied in the literature. Nonetheless, the following minor improvements are suggested in order to improve the quality of the manuscript:

 

  1. Try to avoid the use of abbreviations in the abstract. If their use cannot be avoided, please indicate their meaning.

 

  1. Introduction section lacks a bit of coherence among different paragraphs. Moreover, some of the paragraphs are more focused on describing the procedures or software used for the work. These paragraphs must be removed from the Introduction section and must be included in the experimental one. Therefore, the authors should restructure the Introduction section, even rewriting some parts of it.

 

  1. In Section 2.1.2. the authors have included the following explanation: “if the mass flow rate of steam under the experimental conditions is set in the DAS, the mass flow rate is obtained in real time and the electric signal is transmitted to the actuator to minimize deviation, thereby controlling the mass flow rate by opening and closing the valve” which is totally unnecessary, as it is the description of a automatically controlled flow meter.

 

  1. In Section 2.2.3 the authors have explained that the SPARC test vessel is equipped with 14 hydrogen concentration sensors. This information must be removed from the current section and included in Section 2.2.2.

 

  1. Which is the meaning of the EL 8593, EL8075… codes in Figure 2? I suggest to the authors to include in this figure where the thermocouples are located.

 

  1. KNT PAR is equipped with catalysts. Could the authors provide the information about those catalysts?

 

  1. Figure 4 includes two different graphs. However, the authors have not explained with data must be read in each ordinate axis. Please indicate it by means of an arrow.

 

  1. Figure 6 is very tiny and the legends included on it are hardly readable. Please, modify the figure including bigger graphs. Same comments for Figure 14.

 

  1. Conclusions section is very extensive. This section should collect shortly the main findings of the work. Thus, it must be rewritten and summarized.

Consequently, the manuscript could be accepted once the authors have addressed the aforementioned comments.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

The authors fully appreciate the reviewer’s comment to improve the quality of this paper. According to his(or her) suggestion, we revised the preliminary manuscript step by step.

Please see the attachment for my answers to all reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

 

Thank you for submitting your work to Energies. The overall quality of this paper is good. However, there are two issues should be handled before the publication:

1) Literature survey is not enough and should be expanded further. 

2) The model part should be expanded. Please add the fluid mechanics and heat transfer equation that you used for the simulation, as they are very important for the reactant transportation and temperature distribution inside the tank.

Best, 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

The authors fully appreciate the reviewer’s comment to improve the quality of this paper. According to his(or her) suggestion, we revised the preliminary manuscript step by step.

Please see the attachment for my answers to all reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf