The Study on Numerical Simulation and Experiments of Four Product Hydrocyclone with Double Vortex Finders
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Journal: Minerals
Manuscript Number: Minerals-397435
Title: “The study on numerical simulation and experiments of four product hydrocyclone with double vortex finders ”
The authors are presenting a new design for hydrocyclone that can be used for particle classification. They have well tried to justify the idea using numerical approach with experimental investigation. However, there are a number of important issues that must be addressed before making it an appropriate paper for publishing in this journal. Therefore, I recommend a major revision. Below is my suggestions and comments.
General comments:
- Proof reading is needed. Some grammatical errors, punctuations and typos are observed in the paper.
- The hydrocyclone type is introduced is more applied for classification and the literature review should be extended on hydrocyclones for classifications, their advantages and limits. Also, there is a discussion over incomplete separation ion the paper. But no literature review has been provided. References to show how incomplete separation and wide range of applications are strongly recommended. Below is a list of some recently published papers that can be reviewed for this purpose:
o Experimental and simulation of a novel hydrocyclone-tubular membrane as overflow pipe, DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2017.04.034
o Computational and Experimental Study of the Effect of Operating Parameters on Classification Performance of Compound Hydrocyclone, DOI: 10.1002/ceat.200700449
o Hydrocyclone equivalent settling area factor at higher concentrations and developing a performance chart, DOI: 10.1115/IMECE2014-37482
o Effects of Solids Concentration and Underflow Diameter on the Performance of a Newly Designed Hydrocyclone, DOI: 10.1002/ceat.201600496
o A Probabilistic-Statistical Model of the Particle Classification Process in Small Hydrocyclone Classifiers, DOI: 10.1002/ceat.201600602
o Development of novel hydrocyclone designs for improved fines classification using multiphase CFD model, DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2016.10.026
- The word hydrocyclone should be used consistently in the paper. There is an occasion the cyclones is used where in this case there is no liquid involved.
- All parameters in the equations should be defined either in the text or in a list of parameters.
- Pressure units acronym is Pa not pa.
- While the mesh has been created using ICEM, I assume Ansys Fluent has been used for simulation. In this case, details about the software and its version should be provided.
- Dimensions of both hydrocyclones should be explained in a table (including all diameters, lengths, shapes, etc.)
- The numerical section is independent of the experimental section and there is no connection between the results. Several cases have been investigated in the numerical portion when there is no validation for them. The discussion of the results from the experiments provided no explanation for the simulation and is augmented with the numerical results. The authors should link their experimental results to the numerical ones to support the discussions and the results.
- The paper does not properly conclude the results. It is not clear what message is going to be addressed by the experimental section. The hydrocyclone equations are typically for Newtonian fluids. Have the author tested the viscosity of the mixture to see if it is Newtonian or not? This can have a significant effect on the experiments.
- What assumptions have been made for designing and analyzing the results for the hydrocyclones that are used in the simulation /experiments?
- The accuracy of all measuring equipment and the uncertainty of the measured data should be provided in the paper.
Specific comments:
- Fig 5 should be properly annotated to show sections like internal and external overflow pipes. Also color scheme should be either explained. If colors have no meaning then colors should be removed from the drawings in Fig.5.
- Line 147 and afterward: It should be continuity equation not continuous equation.
- Line 155: please cite a reference for the paragraph.
- Line 149 to 163: the equations do not add any value to the paper and literature except they are NS equations in cylindrical coordinate.
- Having Fig. 7, there is no need to show Fig. 6. There is not much that can be learned from Fig. 6.
- Figure 7 is too small and does not show the mesh properly. Specially the mesh should be magnified and shown in critical locations
- Figure 8: axes should be properly mentioned in the figure. Also, what does the color scheme show?
- Figure 8 should be first introduced in the text before explaining the figure.
- All plots in the result section are too small with small fonts in axes and legends. These should be enlarged as it is hard to read the plots.
- Line 409-415 and figure 23: the discussion in this part and the figure are irrelevant to the subject of this paper.
- A PSD plot for the inlet and the grade efficiency curve is required to complete the discussion.
- What are the concentrations in the experiments? (Weight or volume?) It should be clearly mentioned in the paper.
- Figure 24 should be used in advance in the numerical section to give a better understanding of the discussions.
- Figure 25: pictures should be enlarged and annotated to add a value to the paper. Also, each picture should be captioned properly with descriptive notes.
- The yield% definition should be described and references in the paper. Also, there is no discussion over the yield% in the paper.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Editors and Reviewers，
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, and we appreciate editors and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “The study on numerical simulation and experiments of four product hydrocyclone with double vortex finders”. We have studied reviewers’ comments carefully and have made revision in the revised paper. The main corrections in the paper and the response to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Point 1: Fig 5 should be properly annotated to show sections like internal and external overflow pipes. Also color scheme should be either explained. If colors have no meaning then colors should be removed from the drawings in Fig.5.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion, Fig.5 has been modified.
Point 2: Line 147 and afterward: It should be continuity equation not continuous equation.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing out the mistakes in writing here. The mistakes have been modified.
Point 3: Line 155: please cite a reference for the paragraph.
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion, Reference has been cited. And
We have revised and supplemented the references, especially the references mentioned by reviewers.
Point4: Line 149 to 163: the equations do not add any value to the paper and literature except they are NS equations in cylindrical coordinate.
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. Although the equations are not of great value to the paper, the author thinks that the mathematical model for hydrocyclone can be established by these formulas. The hydrocyclone is a cylindrical structure, the cylindrical coordinate system is suitable to describe the fluid motion.
Point5: Having Fig. 7, there is no need to show Fig. 6. There is not much that can be learned from Fig. 6.
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. The original Fig. 6 has been deleted.
Point6: Figure 7 is too small and does not show the mesh properly. Specially the mesh should be magnified and shown in critical locations
Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. The original Fig. 7 has been modified.
Point7: Figure 8: axes should be properly mentioned in the figure. Also, what does the color scheme show?
Response 7: Thank you for your suggestion. the abscissa represents the quality of the grid and the ordinate represents the number of grids. Generally speaking, the abscissa value is greater than 0.2 , indicating that the mesh quality is good.
Point8: Figure 8 should be first introduced in the text before explaining the figure.
Response8: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the introduction of original figure 8.
Point9: All plots in the result section are too small with small fonts in axes and legends. These should be enlarged as it is hard to read the plots.
Response 9: We have enlarged All plots in the result section .
Point10: Line 409-415 and figure 23: the discussion in this part and the figure are irrelevant to the subject of this paper.
Response 10: Thank you for the suggestion. We have removed the sentence “The second section underflow particles passed magnetic separator and then magnetic separation column and the mixture of underflow and on-sieve products went to ball grinder and magnetic separator again. Finally the magnetically separated concentrate and the tailings were collected.”
Figure 23 represents the technological process of the four-product cyclone, and I think it is necessary to reserve it.
Point11: A PSD plot for the inlet and the grade efficiency curve is required to complete the discussion.
Response 11: Thank you for your suggestion, which is very important. As a result of your advice, I have found my shortcomings in my current work. I will improve my scientific research level in the future according to your advice.
Point12: What are the concentrations in the experiments? (Weight or volume?) It should be clearly mentioned in the paper.
Response 12: Thank you for pointing the error in the paper, we have corrected this error.
Point13: Figure 24 should be used in advance in the numerical section to give a better understanding of the discussions.
Response 13: Thank you for your suggestion, We have put figure 24 in the numerical simulation section.
·
Point14: Figure 25: pictures should be enlarged and annotated to add a value to the paper. Also, each picture should be captioned properly with descriptive notes.
Response 14: we have enlarged the Figure 25 and And a brief descriptionhas been given.
Point15:The yield% definition should be described and references in the paper. Also, there is no discussion over the yield% in the paper.
Response 15: Thank you for your suggestion, The yield% column has been deleted.
·
In addition to these comments mentioned above, we have modified the content of the full text from the title to references as well as format according to sample paper published online.
We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the detailed comments in list. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. Also, we would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for review comments on our paper.
If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you and best regards!
Corresponding Author: Zhang Yuekan
2018.12.16
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript presents an interesting design of hydrocyclone. The main concern from this reviewer is that the results are convincing, as detailed below:
1) Neither numerical results nor experimental results can prove the advantages of the proposed hydrocyclone, as stated in the introduction section. A significant revision must be conducted to revisit the aspect.
2) the mathematic model was not validated.
3) the current numerical results cannot be used to judge which design is better. Authors are suggested to simulate particles to obtain particle separation efficiency using a validated model, and on this basis, use the numerical results to assess different designs.
4) One set of experimental data is not adequate as proof of concept.
5) A few references cited are not relevant. For example, dense medium cyclones (Ref 4) are not hydrocyclones. Their principles behind are totally different.
6) Overall, the conclusions cannot be supported by the results. Moreover, the second and third paragraphs are too general.
7) The literature should be more inclusive. Some recent important efforts contributing to hydrocyclone research should be acknowledged.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Editors and Reviewers，
We thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, and we appreciate editors and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “The study on numerical simulation and experiments of four product hydrocyclone with double vortex finders”. We have studied reviewers’ comments carefully and have made revision in the revised paper. The main corrections in the paper and the response to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Point 1: Neither numerical results nor experimental results can prove the advantages of the proposed hydrocyclone, as stated in the introduction section. A significant revision must be conducted to revisit the aspect.
Response 1: Thank you for the suggestion. The structure and content of the paper have been adjusted and modified.
Point 2: the mathematic model was not validated.
Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion. the mathematic model has been validated in my previous articles( DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.6036/8050 )
Point 3:the current numerical results cannot be used to judge which design is better. Authors are suggested to simulate particles to obtain particle separation efficiency using a validated model, and on this basis, use the numerical results to assess different designs.
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion, I have found my shortcomings in the paper. I will improve my scientific research level in the future according to your advice.
Point 4:One set of experimental data is not adequate as proof of concept.
Response 4:Thank you for your suggestion, Next, we will supplement the experimental data
Point 5:A few references cited are not relevant. For example, dense medium cyclones (Ref 4) are not hydrocyclones. Their principles behind are totally different.
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion, We have revised and supplemented the references
Point 6:Overall, the conclusions cannot be supported by the results. Moreover, the second and third paragraphs are too general.
Response 6:We have revised the conclusions.
Point 7:The literature should be more inclusive. Some recent important efforts contributing to hydrocyclone research should be acknowledged.
Response 7:New references have been added, especially those mentioned by reviewers
We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the detailed comments in list. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. Also, we would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for review comments on our paper.
If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you and best regards!
Corresponding Author: Zhang Yuekan
2018.12.16
Reviewer 3 Report
A solid piece of work.
Very elegant integration of two cyclones into a single unit, and with a double vortex finder.
The simulations are backed up by experiments.
Some minor issues:
Figure 1 is distorted, please fix.
It is better to use "ball mill" than "ball grinder"
Figure 8 is unclear. What is the Y-axis? More detail in the title would be helpful.
Better to use "separation"than "centrifugation".
line 440- better to use "essentially" than "basically"
Figure 25 has serious Health and Safety shortcomings, and the behaviour of being on an unsupported ladder, leaning over, without any safety clothing should be strongly discouraged. That photo cannot be used.
References are quire parochial. Some additions that are relevant and must be included are the recent review by Ni et al (https://doi.org/10.1080/15422119.2017.1421558), the design, simulation and 3D printing by Vega ( https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.06.016), and previous studies on double vortex finders.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Editors and Reviewers，
We thank you for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, and we appreciate editors and reviewers for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “The study on numerical simulation and experiments of four product hydrocyclone with double vortex finders”. We have studied reviewers’ comments carefully and have made revision in the revised paper. The main corrections in the paper and the response to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Point 1: Figure 1 is distorted, please fix.
Response 1: Thank you for you suggestion, we have modified the Figure 1(see Figure 1)
Point 2: It is better to use "ball mill" than "ball grinder"
Response 2: Thank you for you suggestion, "ball grinder" has been changed to "ball mill".
Point 3: Figure 8 is unclear. What is the Y-axis? More detail in the title would be helpful.
Response 3:Thank you for you suggestion,Figure 8 is the mesh quality diagram. In the figure, the abscissa represents the quality of the grid and the ordinate represents the number of grids.
Point 4: Better to use "separation"than "centrifugation".
Response 4:Thank you for you suggestion, "centrifugation" has been changed to "separation".
Point 5: line 440- better to use "essentially" than "basically"
Response 5:Thank you for your suggestion, "basically" has been changed to "essentially".
Point 6: Figure 25 has serious Health and Safety shortcomings, and the behaviour of being on an unsupported ladder, leaning over, without any safety clothing should be strongly discouraged. That photo cannot be used.
Response 6: Thank you for you suggestion, The photo that doesn't meet the requirements has been deleted.
Point 7: References are quire parochial. Some additions that are relevant and must be included are the recent review by Ni et al (https://doi.org/10.1080/15422119.2017.1421558), the design, simulation and 3D printing by Vega ( https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.06.016), and previous studies on double vortex finders.
Response 7:Thank you for you suggestion, We have supplemented the references, especially the references mentioned by reviewers.
In addition to these comments mentioned above, we have modified the content of the full text from the title to references as well as format according to sample paper published online. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the detailed comments in list. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. Also, we would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for review comments on our paper.
If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you and best regards!
Corresponding Author: Zhang Yuekan
2018.12.16
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
No further concerns
