Simulation and Application of a New Type of Energy-Saving Steel Claw for Aluminum Electrolysis Cells
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is devoted to research in the field of optimization of aluminum electrolysis processes in order to reduce energy consumption and improve the environmental sustainability of the industry. The authors propose a new type of anode design to uniformly distribute current density, thereby reducing energy loss and increasing the efficiency of aluminum production. Numerical simulation results confirm the effectiveness of the new design, and industrial test results demonstrate the agreement between calculations and practical application. Economic analysis shows potential energy savings of up to 114.1 kWh per tonne of aluminum produced, which overall could lead to a significant reduction in energy consumption in China's aluminum industry.
Although the work is highly scientific, the article also has a number of comments.
Critical remarks
1. Dear authors, in your work you are considering electrolyzers with self-baking anodes. This technology is outdated. In the introduction, indicate exactly where these electrolyzers are located.
2. In the abstract/introduction you indicated that your system ensures stability and uniformity of propagation of the electromagnetic field. I do not agree with this statement. A non-stationary magnetic field is formed due to uneven burning of the anode mass. The design of the current supply to the anode does not affect this. This decision requires clarification from the author.
3. In your work you spend quite a lot of time on temperature. But you do not indicate the purpose of this control. The electrolyte temperature has a direct relationship with the cryolite ratio. And as a result, it affects the yield of aluminum. I consider it necessary to add information about this to the article.
4. The background of the study has not been sufficiently developed. It is necessary to add information about the types of electrolyzers and their differences. It is necessary to justify the reason for choosing this particular type of electrolyzer.
5. The anodes used are they assembled from plates or is it a one-piece structure. This must be noted in the text. This is a boundary condition or assumption.
Notes:
1. Line 38. Text “the 50% threshold………...” you need to add a link to the work doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52002-w
2. Lines 41-42. It is necessary to add text about the reasons for choosing a particular type of electrolyzer.
3. Lines 75-76. You are absolutely right, but how is this taken into account in your model? (my criticism #5)
4. Line 119. Figure 2. It must be supplemented with a description. It is necessary to indicate where the housing, electrolyte, anode mass, cathode and other structural elements are. It is also not clear regarding the scale. The distance between the anode and the produced aluminum is 3-5 centimeters. In your drawing, a fairly large gap is occupied by the electrolyte. What does it mean? The electrolyzer may be in commissioning mode. The location of the blooms is also unclear.
5. Formula 2. Boundary conditions describe all faces of the mathematical model. You are missing at least 5 more equations.
6. It’s hard to see in Figure 10 (line 319), but it looks like you’re still considering a system with baked anodes. So what kind of electrolyzer do you have in the end?
7. Line 343. Possible syntax error.
8. Line 450. Error "10"
9. Lines 496-506 of references 28-35. Very strange identification of authors.
10. Authors need to increase the “References” section to 40-50 sources
Conclusion. The article is good. Interesting. It contains scientific and practical significance. However, the authors described the problem statement very poorly. There is also confusion in the work regarding the types of electrolysers (with baked anodes and self-baked anodes). Regarding the research carried out, there are only comments in the insufficient description of the boundary conditions. However, this is not critical since the authors could not ignore them when modeling. I think this is a syntax error. Based on all of the above, I think that the article needs to be revised. But she definitely has potential.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank you for your thorough review and constructive comments and suggestions that helped us improve the quality of our manuscript (MS). We have read your comments carefully and revised our MS accordingly to address the raised concerns.
The rebuttal can be found in the uploaded attachment.
Also, we provided reviewer with a version of the manuscript with revision marks.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI read the article with interest, as the issue of Al alloys is close to me, as is process simulation.
With an introduction with a sufficient amount of literature, the authors approached the issue and introduced the reader to the given area.
The methods of the experiments were chosen in connection with the solved problem and the authors specified it precisely.
The results of the simulation and the discussion are precisely analyzed and described in the article, with a follow-up to the conclusions reached.
The conclusion is summarized in individual points.
I recommend the article for publication without comments
Author Response
Thank the reviewer for the comments on this paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMANUSCRIPT REVIEW
The manuscript entitled: " Simulation and application of a new type of energy-saving steel claw for aluminum electrolysis cell based on current density distribution equalization"
Authors: Jinfeng Han, Bing Feng, Zejun Chen, Zhili Liang, Yuran Chen, and Xuemin Liang
This study designs a novel kind of current equalized steel claw (CESC). According to the ANSYS simulation study, may produce a more uniform distribution of current density and decrease voltage. The outcomes of the simulations and the industrial application tests agreed quite well, confirming the simulation's results' accuracy. According to the economic benefit analysis, employing CESC reduces electricity use per t of aluminum produced. The differences in temperature, current density distribution and voltage drop between the traditional steel claw and the optimized CESC under ideal angular conditions were presented and compared. When CESC is applied throughout China, reducing the consumption of 0.58 million 406 tons of standard coal and 4.7 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
Reviewer' comments:
1) Line 81, please define ab. CGB.
2) What is GBD (line 99)?
3) Figure 4, for 15° tilt, to a 30° tilt had no significant effect on current density and voltage drop. What is the reason for this effect?
4) Explain and describe Figure 7 in a little more detail.
5) Line 190, version of ANSYS software missing.
6) How did you evaluate the emission of CO2?
7) The graphics are very nicely done.
8) Delete the reference part of the template, after Ref. 27. You have provided 27 references in the text. The formatting of the references does not comply with the journal's requirements.
9) The discussion section is not covered by the review references dealing with a similar issue. It is recommended to add.
10) What is a specific application? You can tell us a little more about it, a little more engineering approach…
11) The graphics are very quality done.
12) Please provide sources for using material parameters. Is the data from some database?
However, addressing the minor concerns outlined is crucial for improving the manuscript's quality and clarity. Thus, it is recommended Minor Revisions.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank you for your thorough review and constructive comments and suggestions that helped us improve the quality of our manuscript (MS). We have read your comments carefully and revised our MS accordingly to address the raised concerns.
The rebuttal can be found in the uploaded attachment.
Also, we provided reviewer with a version of the manuscript with revision marks.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsall comments have been corrected. As a recommendation for authors, I would like to say. At the beginning of the work, it is necessary to very carefully specify the object of research. Otherwise, it complicates the understanding of the work. Since the article has a wide range of readers, try to make your work understandable to everyone. Success, goodness and peace to you!
