Effects of Geometric Parameters and Heat-Transfer Fluid Injection Direction on Enhanced Phase-Change Energy Storage in Vertical Shell-and-Tube System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Page 3, 129 line The sentence start with " inorder to enhance...." is not proper. Please correct and rewrite it
Page 4, line 168, sentence "However, Han et al...." does not look proper. Please rewrite in correct way.
Page 4, line 189, if two authors are their in paper, et al. is not needed. please correct it
Authors didnot show the pictures of the experimental setup. please provide the pictures of the experimental setup.
Author should recheck the manuscript for the sentence errors, uniform units representation(at some places denominator represented as -1 and other places using /).
The properties given in Table 1, are measured by authors or they were provided by the supplier or taken from literature?
Author should recheck the manuscript for the sentence errors. minor correction in language are needed
Author Response
Zhengzhou, August 23th 2023,
Dear editor and reviewers:
Thank you very much for your careful review and constructive suggestions with regard to our manuscript “Effects of geometric parameters and heat transfer fluid injection direction on enhanced phase change energy storage in vertical tube-and-shell system” (Manuscript Number: materials-2563597). These comments are helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied these comments carefully and tried our best to revise manuscript and made great changes in the manuscript according to the reviewers′ good comments. Revised portion is marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ comments are as follows:
The comments from Reviewer 1
#1: Page 3, 129 line The sentence start with " inorder to enhance...." is not proper. Please correct and rewrite it.
Response: Thank you for your advice. According to your request, I have made the modifications in the text and marked them in red.
#2: Page 4, line 168, sentence "However, Han et al...." does not look proper. Please rewrite in correct way.
Response: Thank you for your advice. According to your request, I have made the modifications in the text and marked them in red.
#3: Page 4, line 189, if two authors are their in paper, et al. is not needed. please correct it.
Response: Thank you for your advice. According to your request, I have made the modifications in the text and marked them in red.
#4: Authors didnot show the pictures of the experimental setup. please provide the pictures of the experimental setup.
Response: Thank you for your advice.In this paper, the numerical simulation of improving the efficiency of vertical shell and tube phase variable energy storage system is studied. A numerical simulation unit is presented in this paper. The simulation results are compared with the experimental results. The literature involved in the experiment has been cited in the paper. Drawings of experimental installations are also mentioned in the literature. The specific test device is shown below.
#5: Author should recheck the manuscript for the sentence errors, uniform units representation(at some places denominator represented as -1 and other places using /).
Response: Thank you for the reminder that these are details that were overlooked in the writing. I have corrected every single one of them in the text and uniformly changed it to -1.
#6: The properties given in Table 1, are measured by authors or they were provided by the supplier or taken from literature?
Response: Thank you for your advice. The attributes given in Table 1 are taken from the literature, the sources of which have been inserted and labeled at Table 1 of this paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have conducted a study on the effects of geometric parameters and HTF injection directions on enhanced phase change energy storage in a vertical tube-and-shell system. The study investigates the influence of two distinct heat transfer fluid (HTF) injection directions, varying pipe lengths, and thicknesses while maintaining a constant volume of shell and tube. The melting process of PCM is examined under conduction and convection mechanisms, both individually and in combination. The following revisions are required for the consideration of this work for publication:
1. The authors should improve the English language of the manuscript, may be revised by professional people.
2. The abstract should include the major qualitative and quantitative results as well.
3. The Coefficient C that is used in the governing equation needs more clarification. Mention some literature that adopted the higher value of the mushy zone constant to support the value that has been used in this manuscript.
4. The numbering and captions of Figures need to be modified, particularly from Fig. 8 onwards throughout the manuscript. Captions should include one statement with sub-captions such as, “Time evolution cloud map of PCM melting fraction and temperature distribution when (a) H = 800 mm and (b) H = 200 mm”.
5. The governing equations, Table 1 and 4 require references.
6. Please update the Introduction part with the following references:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2023.120814
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.115990
Author Response
Zhengzhou, August 22th 2023,
Dear editor and reviewers:
Thank you very much for your careful review and constructive suggestions with regard to our manuscript “Effects of geometric parameters and heat transfer fluid injection direction on enhanced phase change energy storage in vertical tube-and-shell system” (Manuscript Number: materials-2563597). These comments are helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied these comments carefully and tried our best to revise manuscript and made great changes in the manuscript according to the reviewers′ good comments. Revised portion is marked in blue in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ comments are as follows:
The comments from Reviewer 2
#1: The authors should improve the English language of the manuscript, may be revised by professional people.
Response: Thank you for your advice. I have carefully revised this article for English grammatical errors and language problems that may not be particularly perfect. Thank you again for your suggestions.
#2: The abstract should include the major qualitative and quantitative results as well.
Response: Thank you for your advice. I have carefully revised the abstract as you requested. I have also fully supplemented the qualitative and quantitative results. It may not be perfect. Thanks again for your suggestions.
#3: The Coefficient C that is used in the governing equation needs more clarification. Mention some literature that adopted the higher value of the mushy zone constant to support the value that has been used in this manuscript.
Response: Thank you for your advice. C used in the control equations of this paper are coefficients defined by Flent. Specific values are referenced from existing literature, and the sources have been cited and labeled in the text.
#4: The numbering and captions of Figures need to be modified, particularly from Fig. 8 onwards throughout the manuscript. Captions should include one statement with sub-captions such as, “Time evolution cloud map of PCM melting fraction and temperature distribution when (a) H = 800 mm and (b) H = 200 mm”.
Response: Thank you for your advice. I have modified the numbering and captions of all the figures in the text as you requested and added the appropriate subheadings. Thank you again for your suggestions.
#4: The governing equations, Table 1 and 4 require references.
Response: Thank you for your advice. The literature covered in the control equations, Table 1 and Table 4 has been cited in the text and has been labeled. Thanks again for the heads up.
#5: Please update the Introduction part with the following references: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2023.120814 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.115990
Response: Thank you for your advice. These literatures are really good and have been cited in the text. Thanks again for the advice and literature.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have performed CFD analysis on phase change material in vertical tube and shell system. The results are verified with experimental data from literature. The assumptions and calculation method are described clearly and is technically sound. However, the manuscript in the current form needs some edits to have archival value by addressing following comments:
1. The authors have provided results for a very specific geometry. To make it applicable to broader problems or for readers looking to compare their results please provide results in non-dimensional form or a correlation.
2. Introduction section is very long. Please reduce it by at least 50%. The articles cited should be focused on or building towards your objectives. Most of the citations are old. Please use articles published in the last five years.
3. On page 7, line 298 you mention Figure 1.c which is missing.
4. Latest findings on PCM research heavily recommend using natural convection in the simulations. It is good that you are verifying the assumptions in Section 3.1 for the research. However, I would recommend removing that section for brevity and citing articles which justify the assumption.
5. Novelty aspect is a little low for the article. One suggestion for improvement can be that you provide some correlations to estimate transient response for 1D simulation.
The English is accurate but the sentences are not very easy to read and sometimes unnecessarily complex. This makes it difficult to read and comprehend. Please see if you can improve it. You may use some software or proof read with assistance of a native English speaker.
Author Response
Zhengzhou, August 22th 2023,
Dear editor and reviewers:
Thank you very much for your careful review and constructive suggestions with regard to our manuscript “Effects of geometric parameters and heat transfer fluid injection direction on enhanced phase change energy storage in vertical tube-and-shell system” (Manuscript Number: materials-2563597). These comments are helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied these comments carefully and tried our best to revise manuscript and made great changes in the manuscript according to the reviewers′ good comments. Revised portion is marked in green in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ comments are as follows:
The comments from Reviewer 3
#1: The authors have provided results for a very specific geometry. To make it applicable to broader problems or for readers looking to compare their results please provide results in non-dimensional form or a correlation.
Response: Thank you for your advice. I have added and labeled the comparisons and correlations of the results in the text as you requested. I may have biased my understanding of the results in the non-dimensional form you presented. I strongly agree with you about making this study applicable to a wider range of issues, and I have made targeted changes to this in the text. Thanks again for your comments.
#2: Introduction section is very long. Please reduce it by at least 50%. The articles cited should be focused on or building towards your objectives. Most of the citations are old. Please use articles published in the last five years.
Response: Thank you for your advice. I have adequately removed unnecessary content from the introductory section and also replaced older literature. The rest of the content I consider necessary for the elaboration of the research objectives of this paper. Thank you again for your suggestions.
#3: On page 7, line 298 you mention Figure 1.c which is missing.
Response: Thank you for the reminder that these were oversights in the writing. I have changed Figure 1c to Figure 1a. I have also double-checked and corrected everything in the text.
#4: Latest findings on PCM research heavily recommend using natural convection in the simulations. It is good that you are verifying the assumptions in Section 3.1 for the research. However, I would recommend removing that section for brevity and citing articles which justify the assumption.
Response: Thank you for your advice. I also agree with your statement. I have removed the section on verifying natural convection from the text and have cited the relevant literature for this conclusion in the text.
#5: Novelty aspect is a little low for the article. One suggestion for improvement can be that you provide some correlations to estimate transient response for 1D simulation.
Response: Thank you for your input. The introduction section of our original draft of this paper did not make the novelty and importance clear. In view of this, we have strengthened the introductory section to emphasize the innovativeness out. The innovation of this paper is that PCM is analyzed step by step when the tube length varies between 200mm-1600mm for a certain volume. Further, different mesh numbers of expanded graphite are added to the PCM paraffin. By changing the thermal conductivity and physical properties of PCM, the melting law of PCM was analyzed and studied.
#6: The English is accurate but the sentences are not very easy to read and sometimes unnecessarily complex. This makes it difficult to read and comprehend. Please see if you can improve it. You may use some software or proof read with assistance of a native English speaker.
Response: Thank you for your advice. I have fully revised and simplified the English grammatical problems and complex sentences that appear in this article as you requested. I have also had the help of native English speakers to carefully proofread this article. It may not be particularly perfect. Thanks again for your suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I am ok with the edits.
