Forced Convection in Porous Medium Using Triply Periodical Minimum Surfaces
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Introduction should be too lengthy. It needs to be shorten.
2. The letters in the figures are too small.
3. f^0.333 in Eq. (11) should be replaced by f^1/3.
4. What is the physical meaning of PEC under equal velocity (i.e. Reynolds number)? It appears more rational to discuss heat transfer performance in terms of Nu under equal pumping power (Re*f^1/3), as many people do. In any case, the authors should explain and justify their practice in terms of PEC.
5. The authors should compare the performance of their gyroid model with those of conventional fins such as plate fins and corrugated fins, in order to prove the superiority of their gyroid model.
6. The three structures of porosity 0.7, 0.8 and 0.9 based on the gyroid model appear quite different from one another. It may be the structural difference (rather than the porosity difference) that changes Nu so drastically. The authors comment on this issue too.
Author Response
Dear Colleague
Thank you for your kind comments and review. II have addressed al the points raised and made the corrections in the manuscript and used the blue colour showing the correction made. I attached my report.
Best regards
Ziad Saghir
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is interesting and deals with current material
Author Response
Thank you for reading our paper and for the encouraging comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper ``Forced Convection in Porous Medium using Triply Periodical Minimum Surfaces'' by Mohamad Ziad Saghir, Jordan So, Heba Rasheed and Daurenbek Ilesaliev is on development of a porous medium structure by means of Triply Periodic Minimum Surfaces using gyroid model. The paper is well written and is of interest for specialist in the field -- scientist and engineers working on efficient heat transfer (e.g. for cooling electronic devices). Both experimental and numerical analysis of the problem are presented. I can recommend the paper for publication in the Heat and Mass Transfer (Special Issue: Phase Change and Convective Heat Transfer) after addressing the following issues.
line 265-266: ``The flow is 265 assumed Newtonian, incompressible and is in the laminar regime''. It is not evident to me why a flow in such a complex structure is laminar or not (even if it is quite slow). I would suggest the authors to study this topic and comment on this in the paper in order to provide arguments supporting the assumption.
line 285: the Navier-Stokes equation does not contain important ingredients: the gravity force and the buoyancy term (i.e. the term with temperature). It is obscure why this important physical phenomena can be ignored. It is also not clear why the steady statement is used. (This, in my view, should be also studied in the experimental part of the work). I expect the flow with v=25 cm/s to be turbulent and time dependent. If so, I wonder why the assumptions used in the numerical part of the work are meaningful. I would suggest to the authors to study this topic (starting, for instance, from transient simulations).
line 290: the steady equation is used for temperature. It is not clear why temperature distribution in the flow is not time dependent. I wonder if this can be checked in the experimental setup.
section 4.4.: no information is given about boundary conditions for velocity of the surface of the porous structure. I guess it is the no-slip condition, but this should be specified.
line 306: the title of Sec.4.5. is written in a different font. What the authors intend by this is not clear to me.
Labels in Fig.5 are not readable (too small).
In the statement of the problem used for numerics natural convection is impossible (because the corresponding terms are not taking into account). However, the fluid transfers a significant amount of heat. Why this assumption is reasonable, i.e. why such flows do not show the convective instability, should be clarified (with substantial arguments) by the authors.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Colleague
Thank you for your kind comments and review. II have addressed al the points raised and made the corrections in the manuscript and used the red colour showing the correction made. I have attached my report.
Best regards
Ziad Saghir
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, this is a novel and generally well-written paper which makes a good addition to the literature. Therefore, I think it should be published. Please make a few explanations and revisions listed below.
1. Under what conditions authors ignored the viscous and porous dissipation effects?
2. Conductivities of the materials (both solid and fluid) are constant or temperature dependent? It should be mentioned in the manuscript?
3. Reference number is needed for boundary conditions and explains the boundary conditions physically?
4. Which module of COMSOL is used in the simulation?
5. The method for incorporating partial differential equations in COMSOL Multiphysics and the approach taken by the authors to implement boundary conditions in the same software should be appended for the benefit of the readers.
6. It is important to clarify in which computational platform they worked and the computer capacity as well.
7. Future scope of the work should be provided in conclusion section.
Author Response
Dear Colleague
Thank you for your kind comments and review. II have addressed al the points raised and made the corrections in the manuscript and used the orange colour showing the correction made. I attached my report.
Best regards
Ziad Saghir
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors revised the manuscript basically following the suggestions.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author adressed all the points I had raised in my review. Now the paper can be accepted.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
