Mathematical Modeling of a Non-Isothermal Flow in a Porous Medium Considering Gas Hydrate Decomposition: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper reviewed mathematical models for non-isothermal flows in a porous medium. Equations of mass, momentum, and energy conservation were reviewed. Empirical ratios used in the models were also provided. A few minor revisions listed as follows are necessary before acceptance. 

1.      The major contributions of this paper are not clearly mentioned in the abstract and conclusion.

2.      An accurate modeling of a non-isothermal flow in a porous medium is necessary, but what is the current challenge(s)? Any path forward to the challenge(s)? It is suggested summarizing them in a table.

3.      Any lessons learned from earlier research regarding the mathematical models and the associated parameters in 2.1 to 2.9? Any new insights or suggestions to identify a best model/equation?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.     It is mentioned that “It is necessary to build high-quality mathematical models” what do you mean by high quality nowadays we are not solving an equation to show that we are capable of solving it. We should also show that what is the benefit of solving an equation.

2.     Mathematical modeling is also not well presented. Every equation must be named and discussed. Model simplifications must be discussed and all variables must be defined.

3.     Revise the introduction such that each paragraph shall present the meaning of a concept/keyword.

4.     There are no comparisons or at least discussions with the experimental data, which does not allow assessing the quality of the results, physical correctness, and applied engineering importance

5.     Please discuss at the end of introduction, that why is it important from the aspect of APPLICATION and future experiments to investigate the current study.

6.     The units of the parameters can be included.

7.     A comparison data for validation is important.

8.     If possible please use vector graphic images, and avoid serif fonts in figures (use sans-serif types).

9.     The language and grammar of the text is fine overall. There are some typos needing care.

10.  It is helpful to complete the description of how to collect data, data processing scenarios, and interpret the data collection.

11.  What software is used for the simulations? Was the code for the implemented by the authors or a function already existing in the software was used? If the code for the numerical method was taken from another publication or is part of the software used, please cite the resource.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have tried to address all my concerns and the quality of the paper has been improved. Paper can be accepted in present form.