Research and Application of Steam Condensation Heat Transfer Model Containing Noncondensable Gas on a Wall Surface

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposed a condensation heat transfer model considering non-condensable gas on a wall surface. The model was systematically verified and validated by comparing its predictions with other modeling results and experimental measurements. The reviewer would like to recommend the paper to be published if the following concerns can be addressed.

1. In the second paragraph in 1. Introduction, “when” should be replaced by “When”.

2. In Sec 2. Condensation heat transfer model, can the authors emphasize which part of the model is proposed by the authors?

3. Can the authors correct all terms, e.g., htconv and htcond, by using consistent format. For example, “conv” should be formatted with subscript.

4. In Sec. 3.1, can the authors provide any references for Code A and Code B? Also, can the authors add Code A and Code B to Figure 3? It would be interesting to see the performance of these two models. If these two codes are good enough, can the authors explain why do we need the new model proposed in this study?

5. In Sec. 4.2 and 4.2, can the authors point out where D_AB and h are used in their proposed model introduced in Sec. 2, since the authors are trying to do parameter sensitivity analysis?

Author Response

Dear Expert,
I am so sorry that I selected the wrong version file when uploading.

Please refer to the reply for the second upload, the second line of this file is "Updated version"

Thank you very much.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This review is about the manuscript " Research and application of steam condensation heat transfer model containing non-condensable gas on a wall surface". The manuscript shows potential, but it requires significant revisions to enhance clarity, focus, and rigor. The research objectives, methodology, results, and implications should be presented in a more organized and coherent manner.

1.      Title:

 The title of the manuscript should be revised. The title should not be a generic statement; rather, it should accurately reflect the main research idea of the manuscript..

2. Abstract:
• The abstract lacks a clear statement of the significance and novelty of the study. It should clearly highlight the contribution of the research to the field of steam condensation and its practical implications.
• The abstract is too lengthy and contains unnecessary details about the content of the manuscript. It should be concise and focused on summarizing the main findings and contributions.
3. Introduction:
• The introduction provides a general background on steam condensation but fails to clearly state the research gap or the specific problem that the study aims to address. It should clearly outline the motivation for the study and why the current research is needed.
• The introduction lacks a proper research objective or hypothesis. Readers should know what specific questions the study aims to answer.
4. Literature Review:
• The literature review is too shallow and lacks critical analysis of previous studies. It should include a comprehensive review of existing literature, highlighting the limitations and gaps that the current study intends to address.
• More recent references should be included to demonstrate familiarity with the latest developments in the field.
5. Methodology:
• The methodology section lacks clarity in explaining how the proposed condensation model was developed. Detailed equations are presented without sufficient explanation of the underlying physical principles.
• The section on verification and validation needs improvement. It's not clear how the model was validated against traditional containment analysis codes, and the methodology for comparing results with the Wisconsin condensation experiment is unclear.
• The parameter sensitivity analysis lacks context. It should clearly state why these specific parameters were chosen for analysis and what insights were gained from the analysis.
6. Results and Discussion:
• The results and discussion sections are overly focused on presenting numerical data without providing a clear interpretation of the findings. The significance of the results should be emphasized, and their implications should be discussed in relation to the research objectives.
7. Conclusion:
• The conclusion is brief and does not effectively summarize the main findings of the study. It should restate the research objectives, highlight the key findings, and discuss their broader implications.
8. Writing Style and Organization:
• The manuscript lacks a logical flow, and some sections are organized in a confusing manner. The structure of the manuscript should be revised to ensure smooth transitions between sections and paragraphs.
• The writing style is overly technical and lacks clarity. The manuscript should be revised for clarity, conciseness, and coherence.
9. Citation and References:
• The manuscript heavily relies on outdated references, and recent relevant studies are missing. It's important to ensure that the references used are up-to-date and relevant to the current state of the field.

11. Overall Impression:

• The manuscript shows potential, but it requires significant revisions to enhance clarity, focus, and rigor. The research objectives, methodology, results, and implications should be presented in a more organized and coherent manner.

Top of Form

 

Author Response

Dear Expert,
I am so sorry that I selected the wrong version file when uploading.

Please refer to the reply for the second upload, the second line of this file is "Updated version"

Thank you very much.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The problem is interesting, high-level research and the results are important, but the paper needs the following points are noted:
1. The author should explain the novelty clearly in the abstract and conclusion.
2. What are the advantages of the proposed new model?
3. The authors should include scientific reasoning for graphical results in details.
4. What are the advantages of the method used?
5. English should be improved on the paper.
6. The literature survey might be improved by adding some relevant references as:

• 10.1080/10407782.2023.2242579,

10.1016/j.csite.2023.102943

 

should be improve

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript according to the reviewer's comments. The reviewer would like to recommend it to be published in present form.

Reviewer 3 Report

ok i agree