Research on Location Selection of Personnel Door and Anemometer Based on FLUENT

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, the FLUENT numerical simulation method is used to determine the position of the pedes-13 train door in the automatic wind door by analyzing the wind speed cloud diagram and wind pres-14 sure cloud diagram in the two-dimensional roadway model. However, the research method and research content of this paper are relatively common, and the innovation of the research conclusion needs to be strengthened.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Extending functionality of an underground mine door by using it as  a flow rate or average velocity meter is a promising idea. However in my opinion the manuscript addresses it in a too superficial way.

Seven years ago my Institute has completed a research project aimed at guidelines on the way the mine monitoring system anemometers should be installed to obtain the most accurate flow rate monitoring. We have made field experiments recording flow velocity simultaneously in 10 to 15 points in over twenty cross-sections of several underground galleries. In some cases those measurements have been supported with CFD simulations. They have confirmed, that in most cases the anemometers are installed in vicinity of various flow disturbances sources like crossings, transformers, door frames or other huge devices. The conclusion was to place the anemometres far enough form walls and perform manual flow rate measurements to evaluate an individual correction factor CorrF. Then the Flow= vAverage*Area = vMonitored*CorrF*Area.

If the Author proves that there are STABLE places, where the flow velocity equals the average, regardless surrounding obstacles, variations in gallery shape and flow rate increase or decrease, then the correction factor and the procedure for its evaluation would NOT be necessary.

The recommendations on the anemometer position are based on the CFD simulations. Author however has not proved credibility of such results. Proper CFD simulation methodology requires the grid sensitivity study and validation of the method for specific cases, namely flow in a mine gallery in vicinity of a door. For example the long mine galleries have a developed flow velocity profile. Author has used a flat uniform profile at the inlet. Simulation results depend on the inlet conditions.

It should be proved, that:

The simulation method is validated or at least meets the standard requirements (grid sensitivity, yPlus wall conditions…)

The velocity profiles 25 m outbye the door do not change regardless the inlet conditions

The studies in chapter 4 should also use 3D modeling

Door in mines function either as a separation door, normally closed and opened for a short time to allow the personnel and railway traffic. Sometimes the door frames are installed to provide an arrangement for a fast installation of a separation door for example to seal a fire zone. Keeping the door open changes the flow distribution in adjacent galleries and sometimes in the entire mine. Therefore different solutions should be used for closed, opened wide door or opened personnel  door. 

Question: what is the door function, when the velocity is measured.

Fluent is a software of ANSYS using the CFD finite volume method so the term Flunet numerical simulation should be corrected.

The manuscript uses several terms like wind not used in other Mine Ventilation papers, therefore I recommend a thorough technical English language correction.

In my opinion the idea described in the manuscript deserves publishing. However the manuscript itself should undergo major corrections  and maybe be presented as a kind of preliminary study and a presentation of an idea with an outline of the methodology.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper analyzed location selection of pedestrian door and wind speed sensor, and the research results with potential application value are obtained. However, there are still defects in the verification method of the problem, which weakened the innovation of this study. My suggestion is major revised.

1. It is necessary to improve the English edit level of articles

2. Since it is a comprehensive problem of studying pedestrian door and wind speed measurement, the author should describe the specific application background and existing problems clearly.

3. What is the basis for determining the parameters of research roadway and air door selected?

4. What is the basis for determining the turbulence model selected? Please provide the necessary calculations.

5. In the model establishment stage, the selection of model calculation parameters, rules for grid division and validation of the model shall be provided.

6. What type of wind pressure is selected for model result analysis?

7. In Figure 6, how to explain the side of the wind speed direction near the wall?

8. Whether the author has considered the roadway section size when determining the installation position of the wind speed sensor.

9. It is necessary for the author to use experiments or engineering applications to verify the accuracy of simulation research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

1. The article needs a thorough check on the spelling and grammar of sentences. Many sentences are unclear to understand for the general audience. It is recommended that the authors must take services from a native English speaker.

2. The author has cited several relevant references to build up the present model's literature review. However, it is not sufficient. It is vast but not comprehensively focused on the relevance of the problem chosen in the manuscript. Author should update the introduction section by including recent articles published explicitly in the last two years.

3. The initial and boundary conditions are not defined mathematically. 

4. The graphs are fine but the explanation is unclear and physically not justified. Each finding must be justified with some physics to support the argument. 

5. The FLUENT numerical scheme is not explained. Add one section. 

6. There are some symbols and parameters. Why not add a nomenclature table? 

7. The results and discussion section is comprehensive. However, it needs more theoretical reasoning behind each development concerning some physical meaning of the scenario.

8. Conclusions should be revised, the current findings are most general, and the authors are requested to highlight the critical investigations of the present study in the conclusion section.

9. Cite suitable references for the governing equations and check the calculations once again. 

10. What are the properties of fluid under consideration in the governing equations?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

None.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the reviewers ' comments on our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have made a substantial effort to address the critical remarks and provided supplementary information in the paper. The formula of the paper has been changed from Article to Essay, which is adequate. In my opinion it may be published after minor changes, namely mentioning necessity of the grid sensitivity study in further modeling and the English ventilation terminology correction 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

accept. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for the reviewers ' comments on our manuscript.