Numerical Simulation of Airflow Distribution in a Pregnant Sow Piggery with Centralized Ventilation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- It is better to put the number of references in brackets.

- Please express the version of the software used in the research.

- There is no grid study in the manuscript.

- Which CFD software was used?

- What was the range of y+ in the simulation process?

- Did you use multiphase modeling in the simulation?

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your letter and for the Reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Numerical Simulation of Airflow Distribution in a Pregnant Sow Piggery with Centralized Ventilation” (Ref: applsci-2016063). Those comments are all valuable for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and had made correction which we meet with approval. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper.

Kind regards,

Dr. Zeng

 

  The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the Reviewers’ comments are as follow:

Reviewer 1

-It is better to put the number of references in brackets.

Re: Thanks for your advice, but the references form of applsci-template downloaded from the website are numbered without brackets, therefore, we decided not to revise.

 

- Please express the version of the software used in the research.

Re: The main software used in this study including SolidWorks 2016 and ANSYS 18.2 (ICEM CFD and Fluent), and their version were added in line 250，line 254-255 and line 292, which were marked in red color.

 

- There is no grid study in the manuscript.

Re: the grid model was showed in Figure 4(b), and the grid parameter was described in line 259-260, which were marked in yellow.

 

- Which CFD software was used?

Re: the CFD software was used in this study was ANSYS 18.2, including ICEM CFD and Fluent, which was used for grid discretization and numerical iteration respectively. The related content was showed in line 254-255.

 

- What was the range of y+ in the simulation process?

Re: The y+ ranges from 11.2 to 156.4 under the velocity from 0.1 m/s to 1.4 m/s in this paper.

 

- Did you use multiphase modeling in the simulation?

Re: We used Species model instead of multiphase model in this study, for many studies have found that the species model showed a great effect in humidity simulation. Converting relative humidity into water vapor content, which was introduced in line 244-245 and Table 2.

The part of references were listed as follow:

• Guo Jiaming, Liu Yanhua, Lü Enli. Numerical Simulation of Temperature Decrease in Greenhouse with Summer Wa-ter-Sprinkling Roof. Energies. 2019, 12: 24-35.
• Jiaming Guo, Xinyu Wei, Bin Li, Yongfeng Cao, Jiawei Han, Xinting Yang, EnliLü. Characteristic analysis of humidity control in a fresh-keeping container using CFD model. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 2020,179,105816
• Zeng Zhixiong, Wei Xinyu, Lv Enli, et al. Numerical simulation and experimental verification of temperature and humidity in centralized ventilated delivery pigsty. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2020,36(03):210-217. (in Chinese with English abstract)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Article is well written, but it needs improvement points:

1- Quality of figures;

2 - Detail the results further;

3 - Improve analysis of completion.

Author Response

Dear Editors,

Thank you for your letter and for the Reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Numerical Simulation of Airflow Distribution in a Pregnant Sow Piggery with Centralized Ventilation” (Ref: applsci-2016063). Those comments are all valuable for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and had made correction which we meet with approval. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper.

Kind regards,

Dr. Zeng

 

 

 

The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the Reviewers’ comments are as follow:

Reviewer 2

1- Quality of figures;

Re: The legend in Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9 were not clear to read, and we have modified the figure size for better reading, which was marked in yellow.

 

2 - Detail the results further;

Re: The results were added in line 331-332， line 357， line 367-368，line 375-376, line 391-392，line 426，line 434-443，line 462-463，which was marked in turquoise green.

 

3 - Improve analysis of completion.

Re: The discussion was modified in line 553-560, which was marked in turquoise green.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf