| 5 | 1/1 | 返回列表 |
| 查看: 3480 | 回復(fù): 13 | |||
| 當(dāng)前只顯示滿足指定條件的回帖,點擊這里查看本話題的所有回帖 | |||
chuzhaoxiang銀蟲 (小有名氣)
|
[交流]
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 投稿交流 已有8人參與
|
||
|
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 投稿交流 論文投稿2周后進入外審,3個月后收到系統(tǒng)自動發(fā)送的郵件說是外審已經(jīng)結(jié)束,進入Ready for Decision狀態(tài),可現(xiàn)在這個狀態(tài)已經(jīng)持續(xù)49天了,想催又不敢催,怕悲劇了,所以請教一下各位,有類似投稿經(jīng)驗的交流一下。 |
新蟲 (初入文壇)
|
看來鄭院士最近忙,我等了一個月也是1號給的修改意見 發(fā)自小木蟲IOS客戶端 |
新蟲 (小有名氣)
銀蟲 (小有名氣)
|
萬幸,投稿5個月左右返回一審意見,鄭院士給了一次寶貴的修改機會,大家?guī)兔Ψ治鲆幌聦徃逡庖,給些修改建議吧 Comments from the editors and reviewers: -Reviewer 1 The manuscript addresses the issue of analytically predicting the effective thermal conductivity (ETC) of low porosity granular geomaterials. Haigh’s (2012) model for predicting the ETC based on spherical particle embedded in unit cylindrical cell is extended for lower void ratio (e<0.5) has been developed. The work sounds original and reads well. Clarification on electrical analogy for thermal conductivity is explained very well. The pictorial representation of thermal unit cell and derivation of the formulas are noteworthy. However, following points needs to be clarified before considered for publication. 1. For quasi-hemispherical particle enclosed in the cylindrical cell, the radius of the inscribed spherical particles are allowed to grow till sqrt(2R). This assumption control the alpha and beta controlling parameters. Parameter alpha control the porosity (phi) of the system. A proper explanation is required based on physical or geometrial sense for justification of this assumption. 2. The curvature of the menisci holding the water at the particle contact is ignored. This plays a significant role in ETC computation. This should be mentioned in the assumption. 3. Soil Water Characteristic Curve (SWCC) provides better justification for change in ETC of geomaterials which is not limited to sand type materials only. A metion of this similarity is provide in the review of Dong et al. Geotech. and Geolog.Eng. 33, 202-221,(2015). Likos has developed an analytical expression considering this effect. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 33, 179–192. A mention of this work is relevant for this manuscript. 4. Some of the references regarding the numerical thermal conductivity evaluation are relatively old and need to be updated, I suggested recent relevant references by Lee et. al Geothermics 67 76-85 (2017). -Reviewer 2 In this research, a cylindrical unit cell model for predicting the effective thermal conductivity of two-phase or three-phase low porosity granular geomaterials is proposed. As understood by the reviewer, the model is simple geometry discretization of the unit particle into three-phase and assigning an initial thermal conductivity for each phase to fit the experimental data given in the last section of the paper. So, there is not that much difference between this model and fitting curve models exist in the literature (Chen 2008, Lu et al 2007). The general standard is far below what is expected for this journal. The main points will be: 1. While talking about three-phase heat transfer, considering only the conduction heat transfer is not valid. 2. Why consider only low porosity, in the literature, exists also models for low porosity as mentioned by authors: Gori and Corasaniti 2013. And most importantly why cylinder unit model, when eventually spatial correction is needed? 3. The model is only applicable to soils with the same sized particles and pores, which doesn’t exist in nature. There is also no thermal resistance in contacts. 4. The cylindrical unit cell is considered to be the REV, which is false. 5. The only water volume is the water bridges between the particles, which its volume depends on applied suction. What about the bulk water volume trapped between the particles? 6. Are the Equations given in this research derived by the authors or they are taken from literature? The references should be given. 7. Table 3 depicts the thermal conductivities given to each phase (Solids, Water and Air). How these parameters are determined? Isn’t this a fitting curve? The authors claim in the conclusion that their model represents the physical basis of heat conduction rather than empirical models’ curve-fitting to experimental results. 8. What about the effect of particle size on ETC? |
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 070300一志愿211,312分求調(diào)劑院校 +12 | 小黃鴨寶 2026-03-30 | 12/600 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 286分調(diào)劑 +11 | Faune 2026-03-30 | 13/650 |
|
|
[考研] 求化學(xué)調(diào)劑 +12 | wulanna 2026-03-28 | 12/600 |
|
|
[考研]
|
nnnnnnn5 2026-03-25 | 12/600 |
|
|
[考研] 274求調(diào)劑 +6 | xiao愛同學(xué) 2026-03-30 | 6/300 |
|
|
[考研] 一志愿西交288化工專碩求調(diào)劑 +4 | 好運好運接接 2026-03-24 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 085601一志愿西北工業(yè)大學(xué)初試346 +4 | 085601初試346 2026-03-30 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 085601一志愿中山大學(xué)深圳材料工程330求調(diào)劑 +5 | pipiver 2026-03-30 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研]
|
Gymno 2026-03-30 | 6/300 |
|
|
[考研] 英一數(shù)一408,總分284,二戰(zhàn)真誠求調(diào)劑 +3 | 12.27 2026-03-30 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 一志愿華中師范化學(xué)332分求調(diào)劑 +3 | Lyy930824@ 2026-03-29 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研]
|
鐘llll 2026-03-26 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 求調(diào)劑 +10 | 家佳佳佳佳佳 2026-03-29 | 10/500 |
|
|
[考研] 求調(diào)劑,一志愿 南京航空航天大學(xué)大學(xué) ,080500材料科學(xué)與工程學(xué)碩 +6 | @taotao 2026-03-26 | 7/350 |
|
|
[考研] 295求調(diào)劑 +5 | wei-5 2026-03-26 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 本科雙非材料,跨考一志愿華電085801電氣,283求調(diào)劑,任何專業(yè)都可以 +6 | 芝士雪baoo 2026-03-28 | 8/400 |
|
|
[考研] 394求調(diào)劑 +3 | 好事多磨靜候佳?/a> 2026-03-26 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研]
|
y7czhao 2026-03-26 | 10/500 |
|
|
[考研] 環(huán)境專碩324分求調(diào)劑推薦 +5 | 軒小寧—— 2026-03-26 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 考研一志愿蘇州大學(xué)初始315(英一)求調(diào)劑 +3 | sbdksD 2026-03-24 | 4/200 |
|