An Experimentally Validated CFD Code to Design Coandă Effect Screen Structures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments:

The authors presented a well-organized paper and easy-to-read and to-follow. The authors discussed the experimental investigations and 2D CFD simulations in Ansys Fluent on the basis of the Coanda-Effect screen structure (CES). The quality of the pictures is good. This paper has a potential to be accepted, but some important points have to be clarified or fixed before acceptance.

 

1.      Title: The title is adequate.

2.      Abstract: The abstract is adequately addressed.

3.      Introduction: The introduction is adequate. However, the objectives of the study should be mentioned clearly in this section.

4.      Contribution to the literature: The authors should provide key points and the contribution of the current study to the literature.

5.   In section 2.4. Post processing of the CFD results: The sentence should be “Post processing of the experimental results”.

6.  In section 2.5. Statistical evaluation:  The authors should elaborate clearly on the statistical evaluation approach with the mathematical algorithms.

7. The authors should spell out the term “RMSE” in the text of the manuscript including the mathematical formula of RMSE.

8. The authors have used the turbulence RANS k-ω-SST model. What are the reasons to select the SST model rather than other models in the Ansys Fluent (k-ω or k-e model).

9.  The authors should provide more clarification about Fig. 3 with mesh size, mesh number, mesh dependency test, convergence tolerance limits, etc.

10.     It is also advised to the authors to review the abstract and conclusions to reorganize the findings and discussion of the paper in a clearer and more attractive manner. 

11. There are some minor punctuation errors and a general simplification/rewording is needed for some sentences.

12.  In this paper, the experimental investigations and 2D CFD simulations in Ansys Fluent on the base of the Coanda-Effect screen structure (CES) are performed to support the design process of the Coanda-effect screens, which is an interesting and meaningful research direction. I think this paper can be accepted and published in Applied Sciences after minor corrections about text and format editing.

There are some minor punctuation errors and a general simplification/rewording is needed for some sentences.

Author Response

Please see attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the experimental investigations and 2D CFD simulations were performed on the base of the Coanda-Effect screen structure. An experimental compared CFD code to optimize CES was presented, which is interesting and partly valuable. Meanwhile, there are still some issues to deal with. 

1. In page 1, lines 12~14, “The flow rates 7 m³/h, 8 m³/h and 9 m³/h are simulated, captured by a camera system in the experiments and compared.” The data points do not seem to be very sufficient.

2. In page 4, lines 124~130, “Subsequently, an unstructured CFD mesh ……The mesh is shown in Figure 3b.” The work of grid generation is not described enough, and the independence of grid generation is not explained.

3. In page 8~9, whether lines 235~238 should be deleted ?

4. In page 11, “4. Discussion”. Is there any way to improve the accuracy of the analysis based on the simplified boundary conditions?

5. In page 12, lines 278~279, “Also, other RANS turbulence models …… were tested but not presented in this paper.” Are these results accurate enough?

6. In page 12, “6. Conclusions”. The section number may be wrong.

7. In page 12, “6. Conclusions”. The conclusions seem not to be concluded well enough.

8. An experimental compared CFD code was presented in this paper. Its reliability and applicability need to be illustrated detailly.

I think this manuscript needs to be carefully checked and revised before it is accepted.

Author Response

Please see attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has an interesting results, but authors must make the following changes;

1. In the abract, we do not put an equation

2. The introduction section needs to be revised substantially by adding more recent literature research because it is not sufficient to highlight the gaps. Also, The author lacks a summary of relevant work.

3.Novelty should be described more precisely

4. the titles of the figures 1.2.3.4.5.6.8 are very long

5.Paper needs more explanation in section ‘2.4. Postprocessing of the CFD results’

6. Conclusions should show clearly the outcome of this work and future prospects.

Author Response

Please see attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

In introduction authors present some concepts needed to the presented work as well as the description of other studies developed. However, description of coanda-effect screen is overlooked and, in my opinion, this aspect is mandatory for the better understanding of the work.

The numerical simulations developed by the authors were well described and figures represent clearly the geometry, dimensions and used mesh.

Numerical simulations were performed using distinct meshes to the one presented in the paper? It will be important to do it since deviation between numerical results were slightly higher than desired.

Results and conclusions are presented in a clear way for the readers.

Keywords are very generic. Authors should review them

Author Response

Please see attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Revisions are accepted