Can the authors please comment on the possible causes of larger percentage of errors for mesh screen case 3 as compared to other cases? Since turbulence properties and flow fields are available from the simulation results, what can be identified to contribute to a higher percentage of error? Results of the 3D and 2D cases all had a general trend of underpredicting flow loss co when compared to experiments, however the 2D mesh screen 3 case underpredicted more than the other screen cases, hence, screen 3 results gave higher percentage err compared to other screens. A possible reason for this is seen from the flow field resu ut Reviewer #1 has some additional comments and questions. Please address the Reviewer 1's Comments
Author's ResponseIt is worth providing some quantitative comparison of computational resources required for 3D and 2D simulations to highlight the computational advantage of having a simplified model. Computations were carried out on a single node-24 core grid platform, with a runtim 2D case taking an average of 120 mins, in contrast to 840 mins average runtime for th simulations. Therefore, 2D simulations were an average of 7 times faster than the 3D simulation cases. Simulation runtime comparison for 2D vs 3D cases is now introduce Response to Reviewer Comments