Numerical Simulation of Flow Field, Bubble Distribution and Solidified Shell in Slab Mold under Different EMBr Conditions Assisted with High-Temperature Quantitative Velocity Measurement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Chap. 2.2 to 2.5. Insufficient citation of sources for the stated equations. Specify!

 

How is solidification calculated?

 

Line 188 vs. text on Line 193 to 212: It is not clearly stated the setting of the numerical model, resp.  the position of each boundary condition in Fig. 1. Also, it is unclear view of the discussed Fig. 1 - the computational mesh and the method of definition of boundary conditions are not evident.

There is also missing the description of the solution (calculation), it is not possible to give only equations (additionally probably from ANSYS Fluent manual). It is necessary to declare the mechanism of calculation - e.g. first steady state for calculation of flow and heat equations. Then, how is EMBr calculated? As a user loaded function? Then DPM model activated and bubble behaviour calculated under non-stationary conditions (but before must be steel flow calculation finished….etc.).....Please, give this information.

 

Fig.2 - Specify the scale. What is B0 and what unit is it? In parentheses is [T]?

230-238: How and where were the experimental measurements of magnetic induction intensity made? It is not clear from the description.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

After the review of your articles I have only some minor issues. I pointed them below:

1.      EMBr abbreviation should be described at the beginning of the article, perhaps just in the abstract.

2.      Lines 38-39: the sentence suggests the panel is manufactured by CC which is not true. The semi-product is CC produced.

3.      What about the reoxidation during the CC? I do believe in the bifilm theory by prof. John Campbell. Does it apply in these conditions? Have authors any point of view on it?

4.      Line 88: “liquild” to correct.

5.      Line 107: please describe the abbreviations VOF and DPM in the place when they firstly appear.

6.      Line 177: the subchapter is called Large Eddy Model while earlier the Large Eddy Simulation was introduced. Perhaps it is better to be consistent.

7.      Table 1: Please describe the SEN abbreviation.

8.      Figure 5 Y-axis: change “derection” with “direction”.

9.      Figure 6: the same as above.

1-    There is nothing about this ‘automobile exposed panel”. I feel it would be good to introduce some information about it, maybe the sketch of it? Now it is hard to imagine the correlation between the experiments and the panel itself.

1-   Subchapter 3.5: I suggest to move the text before the set of the pictures. Now it is difficult to acquire.

1-   Figure 14: “meniscus” to be replaced with “meniscus”.

1-   Line 474: “velocitis” to replace with “velocities”.

1-   Lines 509-518: To be filled properly.

 

1-    Lines 522-537: as above.

    After you properly address these issues I am OK to further article processing.

     Sincerely,

     Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for acceptation of all suggestions.

I recommend the manuscript for acceptation in present form.

 

Reviewer