Local Heat Transfer Dynamics in the In-Line Tube Bundle under Asymmetrical Pulsating Flow
, Aidar Khairullin 1,*, Denis Balzamov 1, Vladimir Ilyin 1, Veronika Bronskaya 2,3 and Liliya Khairullina 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents attractive results for the improvement of heat transfer in heat exchanger systems. This paper is well founded and structured. The conclusions are consistent with the results presented, so it would be a good candidate for publication in Energies. Here are some comments on their work.
a) There is an error in the abbreviation of Strouhal's number throughout the paper.
b) For grid independency, ¿were tests done?, ¿what was density?.
c) A good plus for your work would have been to make a comparison of the percentage of heat transfer enhancement between your proposed configuration and the existing ones in the literature.
Kind regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Please find my comments in the attached file .
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. In current study, the numerical simulation was performed for Reynolds number Re = 500 with different frequencies and amplitude of pulsation. Is the Reynolds number representative in tubular heat exchangers? Or how to validate the results are applicable in a wide scope?
2. In abstract, the quantitative results, such as the rate of heat transfer enhancement, should be addressed.
3. The English writing should be proofread carefully, there are still some problems. For example, line 168, page 5 “The flow rate in the in the pipes 6 is defined by relations”.
4. The authors stated that “The simple one-equation model Spalart–Allmaras (SA) [44] was used as a turbulence model to save computational cost”. However, I doubt that the SA model has a low computational accuracy, although the authors compared it with LES. The use of SA model is still rough. The authors should address this question carefully.
5. The mesh of the computational domain (Figure 1) should be presented in subsection 2.2.
6. In figure 6, the authors stated “The experimental and numerical simulation difference averaged 17%, with an experimental data error of 12%.” However, it is still hard to evaluate the model accuracy, for the experiment data has an error of 12%.
7. The legend of subfigures in Figs. 7-11 is missing.
8. The authors showed many results figures, however, a deep analysis is lacking, in particular the quantitative analysis regarding the heat transfer enhancement.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
