Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting and well-written paper. The library described in it is a valuable contribution to the Modelica community.
I recommend accepting the paper in its present form. The authors should just check it for minor typos, such as the missing reference at line 41.

Author Response

1. fix minor typos - done (we ran another spell check in addition)
2. fix error in line 41 - done

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper constructs a meaningful database for readers to carry out scientific research. The opinions and contents are correct and can be accepted.

 

Author Response

Thanks! 

We improved some details though and ran another spell check 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

This manuscript ‘’ The DLR ThermoFluidStream Library ‘’ is interesting and applicable. The topics heading in the manuscript are perfectly significant, so I find this consideration, able to be published after some refinements. So, I suggest some comments:

1. The abstract needs more manuscript details and head lines; used computations and equations, used methods, how to group the data, ...

2. Equations (2, 3, e-NTU method, 10, 14, 16, 20-27, ... ) need citations, from where the equations source?

3. The internal shapes in figure 1, need to insert shapes name, in the same figure.

4. Figure 3, 6, 7 also the same comment 3.

5. Please insert list of used symbols at end of manuscript.

6. The word in the manuscript title ‘ThermoFluidStream’. is it one word or two word (that require space, as ThermoFluid Stream)

7. The number of references in manuscript is 16 references. I ask, this study did not has background studies, which are more than 16 references. Also did not have new references, just around 4 references between 2018 to 2021.

Author Response

1) In general I do not like long abstracts but this one, I must admit,  is really too short. It is a relict from the original publication source where context required less from the abstract. Anyway it has been extended by highlighting the novel aspects and hinting at the structure of content.

2) References for e-NTU, 10, and 16 are given.

3) Ah ok. We do not think that it looks nice to name the shapes within the figure but we have updated figure 2 that now lists the components of figure 1 and classifies them. That should do the job as well and improves the overall paper. Also helpful for all the other figures.

4) see above

5) We have a added a comprehensive list of all main symbols in order of appereance. Thanks. It turned out to be a good idea. 

6) Good point. Changed to ThermoFluid Stream in order to be consistent.

7) More background can be found in the paper explaining the computational scheme (zimmer2020). However, also there are many older citations. I explain this to myself because we have revisited the basics on how to compose the equations system and evidently that hasn't been done for a while. (the old MSL approach remained basically unchanged for 20+ years and was never really  questioned besides its long-lasting deficiencies.) There are some more references in the software itself (for instance for pressure loss) but we have only mentioned the sources that are relevant for the content. However I have added some references to other software and introduced newer references. Also the software references are all up-to-date.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper is focused on DLR thermofluidstream library. I found it interesting and sugget the following revisions before a possible publication:

(1) In the introduction part, could you introduce similar works on thermalfluidstream library? I know many softwares have such libraries.

(2) Steam quality is a very important property, why did you not include it into the library?

(3) How did you consider the phase behavior in the library?

(4) Abstract is too short! Please rewrite it and highlight your key workflow and innovation point.

(5) Please add the unit for symbols. For example, Pa for pressure. 

Author Response

1) We list a listof software right before the introductory example. I have added GT-Suite though.  Within Modelica, I have added references to TLK Thermo and the Buildings Library

2) it is included only in those components that are taking phase transition into account. It is the choice of the modeller to pick the right approach for his or her problem. 

3) In the discretized heat exchangers, we modeled a heat transfer coefficient, depending on the actual phase (gas, two-phase, liquid) of the medium.
The vapour quality (and hence the phase) is calculated by the actual, dew, and bubble enthalpies.

4) In general I do not like long abstracts but this one is really too short. It is a relict from the original publication source where context required less from the abstract. Anyway it has been extended by highlighting the novel aspects and hinting at the structure of content.

5) There is now a comprehensive list of all the main symbols at the end including their units if applicable.  

 

Reviewer 5 Report

1. The idea or the purpose of proposing this open-source library needs to be highlighted both in the abstract as well as in the introduction.

2. Error in Line 41. ??

3.A comparison study or at least a literature section that consists of similar works reported previously either theoretically or by modelling would significantly improve the quality of the paper.

4. The references need to be updated by enriching the manuscript with some more recent articles.

5. A process flow chart of the proposed library will help the readers to understand the work more easily.

6. Few grammatical errors are found in the manuscript. Kindly review the article carefully to avoid them in the revision.

Author Response

1) Abstract has been slightly extended. In the paragraph before the introduction, I highlighted where we think that library excels, which is complex thermal architectures with configurational changes

2) Done. Thanks

3) We have added references to similar libraries. GT-Suite, Buildings Li, TLK Thermo. However, keep in mind that there is also the methodolical background paper (zimmer2020). It contains a comparison of approaches and explains more about the concept. This paper is implementation focussed.

6) We ran another proof-read and spell-check and cleaned a number of typos. Never sure if we caught them all... 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Accepted, very good answers from the authors