Study on Gas-Solid Heat Transfer and Decomposition Reaction of Calcination Process in an Annular Shaft Kiln Based on the Finite Volume Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I read this manuscript with interest. The presented area is extremely topical and I believe that it will definitely be very interesting for readers. The article is very well processed both professionally and visually.
I recommend it for publication.

Maybe I would write units m.s-1 and not m / s (for example lines 174, 187.), but that's just my opinion.

Author Response

Point : Maybe I would write units m.s-1 and not m / s (for example lines 174, 187.), but that's just my opinion.

 

Response : Based on your correction, I have revised the unit into a reasonable format. It is on lines 230 and 248 in the newly uploaded manuscript.

 

Thank you for your professional advice, it has helped me a lot.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study is based on an ASK that has been put into production. Based on the finite volume method, this paper combines the porous medium model and the shrinking core model to establish a set of mathematical models that can describe the temperature and flow field distribution inside the ASK, the limestone decomposition process and the heat and mass transfer process inside the ASK. 

 

Comments:

- Delete the scripts from the titles of figures 2 and 5 - 10

- Do not use scripts in nomenclature

- Don't use all caps in references 

After the corrections, it should be published as it is a good work for the scientific community 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Point 1: Delete the scripts from the titles of figures 2 and 5 - 10.

 

Response 1: The scripts in Figure 2 and Figures 5 - 10 have been deleted.

 

Point 2: Do not use scripts in nomenclature.

 

Response 2: The scripts in nomenclature have been deleted.

 

Point 3:Don't use all caps in references.

 

Response 3: Some unnecessary capitalization has been changed.

 

Thank you for your professional advice, it has helped me a lot.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The author examined the temperature and flow field distribution inside the Annular Shaft Kiln with the porous medium model and the shrinking core model. The finite volume method is used to solve the governing mathematical model. The method is very standard. The authors produced some useful results. The paper is suitable for publication after incorporating the review comments.

 

Comments:

1. The motivation of the present works is not enough. Authors can give more details about the motivation of the present study.
2. The literature survey is inadequate. Update and provide a detailed survey of present work.
3. The boundary conditions are not clear. It is better to give in mathematical equations.
4. The solution (numerical simulation) methodology is not given. It should be given in detail.
5. The comparison from previous study is needed in numerical study.
6. The conclusion is too long. It should be brief ad concise. 

Author Response

Point 1: The motivation of the present works is not enough. Authors can give more details about the motivation of the present study.

 

Response 1: Motivation for the current study has been added in line 159 to 170.

 

Point 2: The literature survey is inadequate. Update and provide a detailed survey of present work.

 

Response 2: Added some important developments in the field of lime shaft kilns in the last 2-5 years from line 134 to 149.

 

Point 3:The boundary conditions are not clear. It is better to give in mathematical equations.

 

Response 3: More comprehensive boundary conditions have been added from line 207 to 237.

 

Point 4:The solution (numerical simulation) methodology is not given. It should be given in detail.

 

Response 4: Additional solutions methodology are available in line 238 to 242.

 

Point 5:The comparison from previous study is needed in numerical study.

 

Response 5: Different kiln was used in the same type of study, which I believe can have a significant impact on the final results and does not lend itself to direct comparison. If possible, I intend to do a comparison with previous studies under as similar conditions as possible (geometry, boundary conditions, etc.) and combine this with experimental verification in the next study. This may be more convincing.

 

Point 6:The conclusion is too long. It should be brief ad concise.

 

Response 6: The conclusion has been properly optimized to ensure completeness as much as possible.

 

Thank you for your time and valuable comments, which will be of great help in my future research work.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors revised the paper very nicely. Now the paper is suitable for publication after incorporating the below comment.

Comment: 

1. Remove the Ref. [2-12], [38], [42] which are newly added in the revision. 

Author Response

The authors revised the paper very nicely. Now the paper is suitable for publication after incorporating the below comment.

Comment: 

1. Remove the Ref. [2-12], [38], [42] which are newly added in the revision. 

Response: We have removed the newly added refs during revision stage.

 

Thank you for your time and valuable comments, which will be of great help in my future research work.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx