Changes of Multiphase Flow Patterns during Steel Tapping with Simultaneous Argon Bottom Stirring in the Ladle
, Javier Guarneros-Guarneros 3, Rodolfo D. Morales 4,* and Kinnor Chattopadhyay 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In attachment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Mr. Reviewer,
We appreciate very much your valuable time in reviewing our work. We have followed your advise of adding more references.
The two reference that you suggested do not match exactly the content of our paper. However, we complemented our literature review with other two related references.
Thanks again.
Reviewer 2 Report
The submitted manuscript deals with a CFD simulation of the stell tapping process, aiming at studying the liquid flow during tapping and filling stages in the ladle with simultaneous pneumatic stirring with bottom argon bubbling.
Overall, it is an interesting work, however there are some concerns that should be properly considered before recommending the acceptance of this paper.
1. First of all, the presentation of the paper should be improved. The writing style is not always adequate for a technical publication. The text should be carefully doublechecked before resubmission.
2. The state of the art should be better explored and concisely reported in the introduction.
3. In paragraph 2.1 the basic assumption of the model are listed. It is evident that this is a first approach to the simulation of the process since several aspects have been neglected. This is still acceptable, however the authors should properly and critically elaborate on each point in order to highlight the limitations of the implemented model.
4. Paragraph 2.2 is quite disappointing, since the development and implementation of the model are not properly reported and it is not clear if authors formulated their own code (in this case a carefull validation is needed) or used a commercial package. Looking at some figures and considering the writing of the equations and the used algorithm, it seems that this work was carried out in the Ansys suite, however this aspect was unfairly not declared. Authors are invited to clarify this point and reformulate their text accordingly.
5. Applied boundary conditions shuold be justified.
6. Figure captions should be reformulated.
7. Overall, results are properly reported and discussed. The quality of the artworks is remarkable.
8.In referee's opinion the last part of page 16, discussing the validation and comparing this work with Ref 18 should be reformulated and clarified.
9. Conclusions should be rewritten avoind arbitrary and unsupported statements.
The indicated revisions are warmly encouraged.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we appreciate your valuable time in revising our work. In the following lines we reply your observations.
- First of all, the presentation of the paper should be improved. The writing style is not always adequate for a technical publication. The text should be carefully doublechecked before resubmission.
Answer. Your uggestion was very welcomed. We have checked the text and made improvements. We attach the corrections made in the old manuscript, written in red color, so that will be able to check them straightforwardly.
- The state of the art should be better explored and concisely reported in the introduction.
Answer. We consulted the most relevant works in the field. Tapping is not a well explored field. With the exception of two other works, that we did not report in our paper, there are no others available. The other two works will be reported in another paper because they fit very well our next topic that is the melting rates of ferroalloys. We focused here only in the hydrodynamic aspects. The introduction is now more focused and concise.
- In paragraph 2.1 the basic assumption of the model are listed. It is evident that this is a first approach to the simulation of the process since several aspects have been neglected. This is still acceptable, however the authors should properly and critically elaborate on each point in order to highlight the limitations of the implemented model.
Answer. We have complemented the justification or our model in the new manuscript. We emphasize the assumption of a isothermal bath providing two references that deal with thermal homogeneization by simple argon stirring. The combined sffect of stirring plus the kinetic energy of the entry jet should be enough to maintain a bath very close to isothermal conditions when tapping is under way.
- Paragraph 2.2 is quite disappointing, since the development and implementation of the model are not properly reported and it is not clear if authors formulated their own code (in this case a carefull validation is needed) or used a commercial package. Looking at some figures and considering the writing of the equations and the used algorithm, it seems that this work was carried out in the Ansys suite, however this aspect was unfairly not declared. Authors are invited to clarify this point and reformulate their text accordingly.
Answer. We apologize for dissapointing you as that was not our intention for sure. However, we made clear the software employed in the old msnucript. Specifically it is mentioned in reference (13). To avoid further confusions we made explicit this aspect in the new manuscript.
- Applied boundary conditions shuold be justified
Answer. We rewrite the redaction of the boundary conditions and made a further explantion about the inlet velocity of steel in the entry jet. Thanks for this important suggestion.
6. Figure captions should be reformulated.
Answer. We made some corrections to the captions tough, they seem all right to us.
- Overall, results are properly reported and discussed. The quality of the artworks is remarkable.
Answer. Thank you very much Sir. we are happy for this encouraging comments.
8.In referee's opinion the last part of page 16, discussing the validation and comparing this work with Ref 18 should be reformulated and clarified.
Answer. We agree, this explnation is confusing. In the new manuscript we reformulated the validation of the model.
9. Conclusions should be rewritten avoind arbitrary and unsupported statements.
Answer. We completely agree. However, we stress that our conclusions are based on the results. Nothing that we did not obsrve was written as a conclusion.
Thanks once more for your input and your work helped us to correct many aspects that weere certainly out of place.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The previously submitted paper has been properly revised by the authors. The acceptance for publication of the revised paper is recommended.
