Modeling and Simulation of a Two-Stage Air Cooled Adsorption Chiller with Heat Recovery Part I: Physical and Mathematical Performance Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1.The novelty should be explained more details.
2. Appendix A related to flowchart should be revised and improved.
3. The Appendix A should be explained more.
4. The quality of figure should be improved.
Author Response
Dear Sir
Thanks for remarkable comments
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept in present form
Author Response
Dear Sir
Thanks for remarkable comments
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript deals with the two-stage adsorption chiller with an activated carbon-methanol pair. The core of the study is a mathematical model simulation in order to evaluate two-stage adsorption chiller performance. The contents of this paper lays well within the aims and scopes of the Applied Sciences. Nevertheless, in order to improve the readability and clarity of the manuscript, I suggest a major revision. The major remarks need to be addressed before the paper is to be considered for publishing.
- The introduction needs to be better organized in order to show the new contribution with respect to the state of the art. In particular, the Authors should underline the innovation and advance of the proposed contribution. A clear novelty statement could be provided.
- Model validation needs to be better described. A detailed description of the test bench is not present, nor is a description of the measurement equipment it was equipped with. In addition, the measurement uncertainty of experimental results should be quantitatively discussed in the manuscript.
- How were equations 2,4,6,8,12,14,18,20 determined by “Log Mean Temperature Difference”? The equation for the log mean temperature difference should be given.
- The figures are of poor quality.
- Nomenclature and subscripts needs to be completed.
- “Flow chart for the simulation” is not clear.
Author Response
Dear Sir
Thanks for remarkable comments
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments on manuscript: applsci-1701191
In this manuscript, entitled "MODELING AND SIMULATION OF A TWO-STAGE AIR COOLED ADSORPTION CHILLER WITH HEAT RECOVERY", the authors have addressed a theoretical investigation on a two-stage adsorption chiller with and without heat recovery scheme using activated carbon/methanol pair. The work is interesting and well-presented. In terms of the amount and quality of work, the authors should improve the quality of the paper in view of the following comments:
1. The abstract section needs to be rewrite in view of the following comments:
· The word "two stage adsorption chiller" is repeating in first sentence, kindly make this sentence concise.
· The detailed validation is stated in the next paragraph i.e. “It was found that the simulation model results .................................. cooling capacity (6.7 kW for the model against 6.14 kW for the experimental result at 30 oC cooling water temperature)”. Therefore, try to remove “the simulated models were then compared 15 to the experimentally obtained data to validate the achieved results by MATLAB” sentence.
· The current abstract does not include the research findings enough. The authors need to support the novelty of their research work with presenting some important values obtained through the present simulation.
2. The introduction part needs to be revised with more recent and relevant literatures, including the work from researchers who had worked extensively in this field, for better assessment of the setup.
3. Some of the references are not properly cited, need revision.
· In few references volume number and page number are missing.
· The reference style is not uniform.
· Reference 14 is not added.
4. Authors need to clarify the application of the problem studied and explain the reasons of selecting such ranges of working parameters in Appendix B and C with references.
5. The quality of Figures 1 and 4 are not appropriate, kindly resize to make them look more aesthetically pleasing and readable.
6. The Fig. 5 “Operation energy balance for two stage adsorption chillers” is similar picture of Fig. 1, therefore no need to keep Fig. 1.
7. Referring to the lines 124-125 and Table 1, G1 G2 G3 G4 are beds or modes of operation, kindly clarify?
8. The subscripts used in energy balance equations need to be updated in nomenclature section.
9. The grammar of the manuscript needs to be checked, and there are obscure expressions.
10. Please check on the formatting of your manuscript and improve the quality of the writing, too.
11. The similarity seems to be around 30%, it may be reduced further.
Recommendation: Present manuscript can be considered for publication after the above mentioned revisions.
Author Response
Dear Dr.
Thanks for valuable comments
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
The figures (schematics) - figures 1 to 4 are of poor quality and add very little value to the reader. These must be changed.
The results are not adequately summarized in the conclusions section.
The manuscript is few steps away from its full potential - please reflect on the figures of lesser quality and a more adequate summary - connecting the bigger problem being solved to the current results will definitely be a better read.
Author Response
Dear Dr.
Thanks for valuable comments
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has not been sufficiently revised. The lack of detailed description of the measurement part and the lack of measurement uncertainty analysis does not allow to properly evaluate the proposed model. The outlet temperatures are not directly derived from the equation for LMTD. It is still not specified from which equation these formulas are derived. The equation for LMTD is not specified. Suggests to reject the article in its current form.
Author Response
Dear Dr.
Thanks for valuable comments
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
