Comparison of Corrected and Uncorrected Enthalpy Methods for Solving Conduction-Driven Solid/Liquid Phase Change Problems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Minor Corrections
A list of nomenclature must be included in the article to facilitate the reading of the manuscript. There are some parameters that are not conveniently described in the article text, such as coefficient A in table 1 or ΔTslab delta.
Equations 17 and 15 must be presented earlier in the text, the first reference to equation 17 is on line 201 and the equation is presented only on line 299. Equation 15 is first referenced on line 249 and the equation is presented on line 297.
line 48 recommend replacing "institutions" with "research groups".
line 564 point 6 is conclusions not discussion.
Major Corrections
The conclusion must be reformulated, the conclusions must be small paragraphs that indicate what are the best approaches to solve the problem addressed.
The explanation presented in point 6 should be used to improve the results discussion in point 5.
Author Response
We want to thank the reviewer for his detailed comments that helped us to improve our manuscript. Our responses can be found below:
Comment:
Minor Corrections
A list of nomenclature must be included in the article to facilitate the reading of the manuscript. There are some parameters that are not conveniently described in the article text, such as coefficient A in table 1 or ΔTslab delta.
Answer:
A nomenclature was added to the manuscript.
Comment:
Equations 17 and 15 must be presented earlier in the text, the first reference to equation 17 is on line 201 and the equation is presented only on line 299. Equation 15 is first referenced on line 249 and the equation is presented on line 297.
Answer:
The place of the equations was changed to section 2.2, now the first reference is next to the equations themselves.
Comment:
line 48 recommend replacing "institutions" with "research groups".
Answer:
“Institutions” was replaced with “research groups”.
Comment:
line 564 point 6 is conclusions not discussion.
Answer:
The heading was changed to conclusion.
Comment:
Major Corrections
The conclusion must be reformulated, the conclusions must be small paragraphs that indicate what are the best approaches to solve the problem addressed.
Answer:
The conclusion was partially reformulated and divided into smaller paragraphs.
Comment:
The explanation presented in point 6 should be used to improve the results discussion in point 5.
Answer:
The results discussion was improved with the point mentioned.
Reviewer 2 Report
Title: Comparison of corrected and uncorrected enthalpy methods for solving conduction driven solid/liquid phase change problems
Authors: Andreas König-Haagen and Gonzalo Diarce
The current paper is based on numerical simulations to compare the correction and uncorrected enthalpy methods.
The current manuscript explores the thermal performance of melting performance of phase change material based on a shell-and-tube thermal energy storage unit with rectangular fin configuration. There are some typo and grammar mistakes, please recheck again. The following are the major queries and comments needed to address to improve the quality of the manuscript:
1. There is no proper critical information of input variables and critical outcomes.
2. Problem description is not well explained. Literature review is not clearly mentioned. Literature is very short and not updated.
3. Novelty is very weak, and objectives are not well clarified.
4. Provide the reference of table 1 and materials.
5. Provide a good validation result with published experimental results of liquid fraction and temperature history in graphical form.
6. Improve the discussion more technically. Missed the scientific reasoning.
7. Conclusion should be improved with critical outcomes.
Author Response
We want to thank the reviewer for his comments that helped us to improve our manuscript. Our responses can be found below:
Comment:
The current manuscript explores the thermal performance of melting performance of phase change material based on a shell-and-tube thermal energy storage unit with rectangular fin configuration. There are some typo and grammar mistakes, please recheck again. The following are the major queries and comments needed to address to improve the quality of the manuscript:
Answer:
The reviewed manuscript has been edited for proper English language, grammar, punctuation and spelling by a highly qualified native English speaking editor.
Comment:
There is no proper critical information of input variables and critical outcomes.
Answer:
The introduction, discussion and conclusion section were improved. There is a list of addressed research questions at the end of the introduction. This list is used again in the discussion section to make the outcomes clear. All input variables are given in section 2.1 and section 2.4.
Comment:
Problem description is not well explained. Literature review is not clearly mentioned. Literature is very short and not updated.
Answer:
We improved the problem description and we added references. The article has 35 references with many of them from the last 10 years.
Comment:
Novelty is very weak, and objectives are not well clarified.
Answer:
The introduction, discussion and conclusion section were improved.
Comment:
Provide the reference of table 1 and materials.
Answer:
The material we use is generic, therefore we can not provide a reference.
Comment:
Provide a good validation result with published experimental results of liquid fraction and temperature history in graphical form.
Answer:
Performing a validation against experimental results is adequate when simulating a complete latent heat thermal energy storage system; however, in the present case, we can use an analytical solution as reference, which is actually a better alternative than experimental results.
Comment:
Improve the discussion more technically. Missed the scientific reasoning.
Answer:
We improved the discussion.
Comment:
Conclusion should be improved with critical outcomes.
Answer:
We improved the conclusion.
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, various factors affecting the numerical calculation of solid-liquid phase change is examined and the best calculation method is discussed. I think that the findings presented in this paper are useful as guideline for the calculation of solid-liquid phase change. However, there are some points of concern, and I think this paper could be published after following comments are addressed.
1. The authors compare the increase of apparent specific heat with solid-liquid phase change, expressed as a straight line or an error function. However, the triangle model and the sin curve model have also been proposed for the apparent specific heat [1]. A comparison using these models would also be very useful.
2. The definition of Δtstab was unclear. Please provide the definition in the text. Also, there is a condition that ΔTm is zero, but this would make capp go to infinity. Please also provide the definition of ΔTm in the text.
3. In page 21 “6. discussion” may be mistake for “conclusion”
[1] Z. W. Ma and P. Zhang, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran., 64(2013) 874.
Author Response
We want to thank the reviewer for his detailed comments that helped us to improve our manuscript. Our responses can be found below:
Comment:
In this paper, various factors affecting the numerical calculation of solid-liquid phase change is examined and the best calculation method is discussed. I think that the findings presented in this paper are useful as guideline for the calculation of solid-liquid phase change. However, there are some points of concern, and I think this paper could be published after following comments are addressed.
- The authors compare the increase of apparent specific heat with solid-liquid phase change, expressed as a straight line or an error function. However, the triangle model and the sin curve model have also been proposed for the apparent specific heat [1]. A comparison using these models would also be very useful.
Answer:
There exist plenty of possible slopes and to limit the (already quite large) number of simulations we only studied these two slopes, but referred to the mentioned paper [1]. We also want to highlight that we study isothermal phase change and therefore the slope doesn’t have a physical meaning.
Comment:
- The definition of Δtstab was unclear. Please provide the definition in the text. Also, there is a condition that ΔTm is zero, but this would make capp go to infinity. Please also provide the definition of ΔTm in the text.
Answer:
The definition of Δtstab was added to the text in section 2.2.
The definition of ΔTm was added to the text. In Table 3 all the variations are given and it can be seen that “ΔTm = 0 K” is only included for solvers that can handle it.
Comment:
- In page 21 “6. discussion” may be mistake for “conclusion”
Answer:
The heading was changed to conclusion.
[1] Z. W. Ma and P. Zhang, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran., 64(2013) 874.
