Measurement of Surface Velocity in a 150 mm × 1270 mm Slab Continuous-Casting Mold

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript brings interesting scientific knowledge. It is made in sufficient scientific quality. The manuscript contains minor errors and typing errors. It can be recommended to be published after mandatory revision of errors (see attachment and below).

1) The text contains minor errors.

2) Joint he lines of Table 1 on one page

3) Correct the numbers of equations (16) and (17) to (9) and (10).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Point 1: The text contains minor errors.

Response 1: Line 160, “Error” was modified as “error”. Line 175, “a” was added before slight fluctuation.

Point 2: Joint he lines of Table 1 on one page.

Response 2: It is really true as Reviewer suggested that Table 1 was jointed on one page.

Point 3: Correct the numbers of equations (16) and (17) to (9) and (10).

Response 3: We are very sorry for our negligence of the incorrect numbers of equations and have corrected the numbers of equations (16) and (17) to (9) and (10).

Thanks for your good comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present the nail-board experiment along with PIV test and numerical simulation for surface velocity measurements in continuously cast slab mold.

Line 48: Add abbreviation for particle image velocimetry (PID) test, since it is often used in the following text.

Line 55: Alpha_steel is not used in any of the equations, define alpha_slag instead.

Line 66: Put Table 1 into the same page.

Figure 3: Draw results (vectors) in the same scale for PIV and for numerical simulation. It is hard to compare figures in different scales or with different number of points. As you have more calculation points than measured points (pixels), match the calculation points with pixels and draw velocity vectors just in those points. Add the number of measurement points   (pixels) for PIV. Improve the resolution of figures, especially 3b.

Line 94: Are the results of the numerical calculation really more precise? What is the error of PIV test and what is the error of your numerical calculations? Having more points does not automatically mean greater precision.

Line 109: What kind of oil was used? What was the typical size of the oil droplets and what was the difference in the density ratios?

Figures 5, 7 and 8: Use the same notation for numerical results, preferably a line as shown in Figure 8.

Equation 16: Correct subscripts in Eq. 16.

Line 130: What do these two numbers represent?

General: In section 2 Experimental setup you describe your experimental setup for nail-board and your numerical  simulation setup. What about PIV? Write a sentence or two about your PIV setup as well.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf