Effects of Selection of Inlet Perturbations, Multiphase and Turbulence Equations on Slug Flow Characteristics Using Altair^® AcuSolve™

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors investigated the effects of the inlet perturbations, the multiphase flow models and the turbulence equations on the characteristics of slug flow when using the Altair® AcuSolve™ simulation codes. Basically, this paper is well written and organized. My biggest concern with this work is that what new knowledge it provided to understand the slug flow? In other words, What is the academic innovation of this paper? If this point is not well addressed, the present work is not so much a “paper” as a “report”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

paper is interesting. The following issues should be improved:

1. Figures 2 and 3, concerining mesh are not clear. Mesh discussion should be in more details. Could you achieve independence of solution of the mesh?
2.  Chapter 2.6 is not clear. Installation and measurement uncertainty are not presented. 
3. Conclusions are more general and should be more detailed.

Best regards,

Reviewer.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

this paper can be validation of commercial CFD programs based on theoretical methods. so, the paper should be include the accurate information about used numerical setup(grid generation, wall treatment etc.). In light of this sight, the level of the yplus distribution and grid refinement is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors used different setting (model) of CFD parameters in Altair AcuSolve to simulate the slug flow, and compared the results with Ansys, STAR-CCM+ and experiments. The results are, in  general, clear and the simulations have been carefully done. The work deserves to be published at some point. I have some recommendations, listed below

The caption of figure 6,7 need to be more detailed, some information from line 382-390 could be included the the caption.

I see the flow directions of figure 6 and figure 7 are opposite, is there any particular reason for this? It may be better if they can keep consistent.

The quality of the English language could be improved, especially in the abstract. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors well responded my concerns. I also noticed that they have carefully revised the other problems of the paper. I think the manuscript can be accepted in its present form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

paper is significantly improved.

Anyhow, issues concerning CFD results validation still exist. It is still not clear what is the measuring uncertainty estimation.

Regards,

reviewer.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf