Lattice Boltzmann Simulation of Non-Steady-State Particulate Matter Filtration Process in Woven Fiber
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors used the Lattice Boltzmann method to Simulate the Non-Steady-State Particulate Matter Filtration Process in Woven Fiber.
A figure presenting the studied 3D configuration with the boundary condition is to be added.
The solved governing equations are to be presented.
A figure resenting the used mesh is to be added.
A grid sensitivity test is to be performed.
Have you used a moving mesh ? how captured particles (solid) have been treated?
Why the flow structures are presented only for the clean woven fiber case?
A validation/verification of the numerical model is to be performed.
The paper is to be checked against misprints and grammatical mistakes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents an LBM/LB-CA model for simulating the filtration process in woven fibres and investigating the efficiency of various fibre configurations. I recommend accepting the manuscript once the following issues have been addressed:
-
Major comment: Please devote a section and report multiple standard benchmarks relevant primarily to the coupling of LBM/LB-CA, for example, by reproducing older/simpler reported results, reproducing standard benchmarks, or examples with analytical solutions. Otherwise, the simulation results are untrustworthy.
-
Line 21-28: The paragraph lacks citations to the introduced methodologies.
-
2.2 Section Please specify whether the particles are tracked in a lagrangian or an Eulerian framework; for example, does x p always coincide with the lattice nodes?
-
Are the captured particles reported at steady-state or simply at the same timestep for all simulations?
-
Is the effect of adhesion force between the fibre and the particles and between the particles considered? If not, please explain in the text how this would affect the reported results.
-
What is a “fully developed” boundary”? poiseuille velocity profile or a constant velocity? Why not outflow BC or a pressure BC? Please clarify.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript (applsci-1881023), the filtration processes of a general element (two orthogonal elliptical fibers) of woven filters have been quantitatively evaluated using the LB-CA model. The formation and growth of dendrites under different conditions were explored by the authors.
After a careful peer-reviewing process, I must regret to inform you that, the subject of this paper is not interesting and cannot be considered for publication in this journal and must be REJECTED. I don’t believe that the paper contains relevant information for the scientific community. I am also certain that the results are not informative and must be well organized and improved for the next submission(s) in any journal. Therefore, there are some critical comments about this submission as follows:
1. Typos and minor grammar errors are common in the manuscript. A considerable number of sentences are not comprehensible, some of which can be due to typos or grammar errors. Careful proofreading is mandatory for this case.
2. The abstract is not well written. Some details of the experimental processes were missed in the abstract. Please revise this section.
3. The last two lines in the abstract must be improved to increase its readability: “The importance of this work and/or future developments/trends”.
4. Despite the large bibliography, the Introduction is sparse. It should, to a greater extent, refer to the problem that has been described in some respects in previous publications.
5. The state-of-the-art needs to be described more in the “Introduction”. Please revise the last paragraph of this section.
6. The new findings related to this work should be stated in the introduction clearly.
7. Please provide the manufacturer/model/code and also the manufacturer country of the raw materials as well as all testing equipment used for evaluations.
8. Authors must show which questions/problems have been answered in this work. In this case, the correct and detailed information about this study must be provided in this manuscript.
9. In this manuscript, results are well presented, but discussion on the obtained results must be completely provided in this manuscript. As can be seen, a “comprehensive” and “comparative” discussion is missed in this work. This should be provided as well.
10. Please provide major findings in the “Conclusions” section with a bullet-point style.
11. There is no description of the future plans for research in the first part of the “Conclusions” section. This should be completed in this section.
12. Recently published references are beneficial for this work. Please check and use new references focused on your work.
13. Also, please double-check and revise the reference list according to the journal requirements.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept as it is
Author Response
We are truly grateful for your efforts on the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
I suggest acceptance of the manuscript following the revision
Author Response
We are truly grateful for your efforts on the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
I am standing on my previous decision: Reject. Additional /complementary comments are provided below:
1- I still believe my last comments #4 and #9 from round 1 are not adequately answered/addressed by the authors. #4- Despite the large bibliography, the Introduction is sparse. It should, to a greater extent, refer to the problem that has been described in some respects in previous publications. +++ As can be seen, an adequate introduction is not provided in weaving patterns of filter cloth and the importance of selecting the LB-CA model for this investigation. #9. In this manuscript, results are well presented, but a discussion on the obtained results must be completely provided in this manuscript. As can be seen, a “comprehensive” and “comparative” discussion is missed in this work. This should be provided as well. +++ Especially on the dendritic structure taken with different particle parameters.
I believe that a "decisive" peer review process/decision encourages authors to strive to produce a high-quality manuscript that will advance the field
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
