Numerical Simulation and Parameter Optimization of a New Reed–Nylon Net Combined Sand Fence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Optimize the sizes of Fig.1, Fig.2 and Fi.3, Fig.4.

2. Use a table to highlight the advantages of the proposed methods by comparing with available methods.

3. Discussion and conclusion should be two separated parts.

4. How about the cost of the proposed method.

5. Improve the quality of the figures.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The manuscript deals with the simulation of windproof effect and airflow features of newly developed double-row Reed-Nylon net combined sand barrier using computational fluid dynamics method and Euler-Euler double-fluid model. The content of this manuscript falls into the scope of the journal and the authors must address the following shortcomings noted in the study and revise the manuscript by duly providing technically strong responses to each of the queries raised.

1.    Scope of this manuscript is very limited and findings are very certain. So, there is a need to clear the objectives of this manuscript in the light of literature.

2.    Authors did not offer some tangible modifications in applied model considering the specific requirements and methodology to achieve their objectives accurately in this manuscript. What is the actual attraction for researcher and petitioners?

3.    Boundary conditions of FE models are not properly defined. What is the mess density? What is the total thickness of rock mass? Why the grade of mess is not so refined? Why is the shape of mess openings triangular? Is selected size of the mesh domain being sufficient to avoid boundary effects? Answers to all these questions are not available in the manuscript. The authors are encouraged to refer to the following articles and address the raised queries in the light of these relatable articles while revising the manuscript.(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2021.04.004, https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2019.1576244)

4.    Precise the conclusion section and separate the discussion section from it.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Can be improved

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) method is used to simulate the flow field characteristics and sand blocking characteristics of reed nylon net combined sand barriers, which better demonstrates the characteristics and advantages of different types of sand barriers combinations. The flow field characteristics of the net wind field and the sand field are simulated, and the corresponding experimental comparisons are carried out to verify the reasonableness of the simulation. The advantages of reed nylon net sand barriers are analyzed, and the most suitable parameter configurations are found under different porosities and different spacings. It fully demonstrates that the combined sand barriers have better advantages in wind and sand blocking, and provides technical reference for the subsequent arrangement of transportation road protection facilities in desert areas. The research ideas in this paper have good innovation, the overall structure of the content is rigorous and clear, the calculation results are reasonable, but there are some shortcomings. It is recommended to be accepted after modification.

 

1)     the author chooses Euler-Euler model for calculation simulation. Compared with other models, what are the advantages of this model in the calculation of this numerical model?

2)     The author chooses the standard k-ε model for the net wind field and Realizable k-ε for the sandy field, why two different turbulence models were chosen for the calculations.

3)     Figure 7. (a) The picture color is not clear. The author needs to clearly represent the location of the grid encryption region and explain the necessity of the region encryption.

4)     Figure 11 and Figure 17 is plotted poorly, and partial contours should be plotted to better show the result changes.

5)     The parameters of effective protection distance used in Figure 14 are not clearly stated, and the author needs to increase the basis for determining the effective protection distance.

6)     The authors made an excellent numerical simulation through CFD, I would like to know if there is a practical application situation.

7)     L531. The reference content is incorrect, author needs to modify.

8)     Figure.13 The image title font format is obviously inconsistent, author needs to modify.

9)     L156. the 10-6 is clerical error, author needs to modify.

10)  Other problems: Language expression should conform to academic norms. The English level of the article is sufficient to understand the content. Some sentences are clumsy in structure and have some grammatical errors. Suggest the author to further improve.

The paper reads well. I have no comments on the language of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accepted