CFD-DEM Modeling and Simulation Coupled to a Global Thermodynamic Analysis Methodology for Evaluating Energy Performance: Biofertilizer Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of “CFD-DEM modeling and simulation coupled to a global thermodynamic analysis methodology for evaluating energy performance: biofertilizer industry”

 

The paper is concerned with the numerical investigation of a counter-current rotary drum. A coupled CFD-DEM model from an established software has been applied and industrial data has been used for validation.

 

The paper contains a large number of typos and inconsistencies in SI-units. Furthermore the overall English should be improved to help with readability.

 

There are a few questions/clarifications that should be addressed before publication. Given here in no particular order of importance.

 

1. What turbulence boundary condition was implemented at the DEM particle walls?

 

2. It is unclear how the particle boundary conditions were implemented. How did particles enter and leave the (cropped) domain? Was it through a random seed inlet?

 

3. Was the drum tilted at an angle?

 

4. Section 3.2., line 2. How did you judge that the reduced length was representative?

 

5. Section 3.2., line 11. This sentence does not make sense. Please revise it.

 

6. Section 3.2., line 18. “Particle-particle and particle-wall interaction were defined as constant”. Please specify what this means.

 

7.Section 3.3., line 1. How was the time of 17.5 s determined to be “appropriate”?

 

8. Section 3.3., line 9. It seems that the construction of the plane is crucial for the results with the current definition, unless the mass flux is constant (which I guess it is not). Please elaborate on this.

 

9. Many places use units of Kg instead of kg. “K-epsilon” and “k-epsilon” turbulence model appears in the text. ^oC and C are both used as units of temperature. Tonne is given as “tonne” or “t” not “T” as in Tesla. Power is given in “kW” not “Kw” or “KW” (both appear in your text).

 

10. The number of particles in the industrial case is given with 10 digits – how was this determined?

 

11. Section 3.3. “Simulation results” - the results are also given in section 4.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article provides a unique methodology to estimate the behaviour of heat transfer inside rotary coolers.

I have a few miner and major comments which hopefully would help perfecting the manuscript.

 

-The abstract doesn't follow standard format. (e.g, why this method is useful?)

-The concept in line 111-113 is not clear enough.

-For showing the figures or table remove "see" in the text.

 

-What is the criteria for selecting these two models? and what was the logic behind it?

-How your comparison result can be helpful and applicable for new user? (Heat transfer and thermodynamic)

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Excellent study

Author Response

There were only two reviewers

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have two final comments to the author's.

 

I suggest to change the style with the current huge number of sub-paragraphs. I think my comment #10 was misunderstood. You give 10 significant digits for the number of particles in the industrial process. You base this on a calculation with only 2 (possibly 1) significant digits. I recommend to change the value to an appropriate one.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

As I mentioned in previous version, the abstract doesn't follow standard format and needs to be revised.  

Authors claim that they revised typos, but still there are a lot of typographical errors in the text, (e.g, K-epsilon).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf