Analysis of Optimization Weights for Flow Field of Internal Rotation Stabilizer Coupled with Porous Retaining Wall

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting and overall well done, well prepared and nice to read.

I have very few remarks.

• The basic assumptions made by the authors (Section 3) would need to be more deeply commented and justified.
• The authors should pay attention to correctly introduce all the symbols used in equations the first time they are used. In general, the readability of the paper would benefit from the addition of a list of symbols.
• The conclusions are well supported by the provided data, but they should start with a general statement. Having an itemized or numbered list is nice, but a more discoursive discussion should be provided.
• The authous should also provide some hints on future work after the concluding remarks.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Dear Comments：

First of all, thank you for your suggestions, I think it is deeply implicit to increase the readability of the article, and I make the following changes according to your recommendation. The content submitted here cannot display pictures, so please see the attachment content.

Thanks & Best Regards.

Mr. Yan Jin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article concerns an interesting and at the same time topical subject related to modeling the flow field of internal rotation stabilizer in tundish. The introduction provides an appropriate justification for undertaking the research. The proposed methodology does not raise any objections. The research results are presented graphically and in tables, and thoroughly discussed. There are, however, a few errors in the work that should be corrected before possible publication:
- line 21-22 - need changes, now not clear
- line 31-33 - requires changes, currently not very understandable
- line 38 - pollution - contamination appeared earlier - please stick to one terminology
- line 44 - realize precise control - maybe ensure?
- line 52 - not very clear
- Figure 1 - requires clarification, side view, top view, preferably a, b, c
- Table 1 - Inner diameter of stop?, The same outer diameter of stop?
- Figure 6 - description difficult to read
- Table 2 - Describe A, B, C and D, not only in the text
- Table 3 - add No of plans / variants
- line 229 - crystalizer - previously there was a mold, one term
- first there should be a reference to a drawing or a table, then this table and drawing

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Dear Comments：

First of all, thank you for your suggestions, I think it is deeply implicit to increase the readability of the article, and I make the following changes according to your recommendation. The content submitted here cannot display pictures, so please see the attachment content.

Thanks & Best Regards.

Mr. Yan Jin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf