If you have access to OneMine as part of a member benefit, log in through your member association website for a seamless user experience.
Contribution by G. Narsimhan It was with much pleasure that I went through D.F. Malan's excellent paper. The following explanatory and critical note has been the result of my deep study of the paper. Although by qualifications and experience I have been a chemical engineer, involved over four decades with problems in the modeling and simulation of transport-limited (heat and mass) chemical reactions in multi-phase systems, I have of and on interested myself in challenging problems in extractive metallurgy. This is the first time I have veered of to continuum mechanics, at the age of 71! Author's reply. I thank Professor Narsimhan for his extensive contribution to the paper. It provided me with the stimulus to derive an extended model. However, there are some inaccuracies in his arguments that need further discussion. Professor Narsimhan's main concern is that there is not a good enough fit between the derived viscoelastic Kelvin model and the experimental data supplied by Güler1 (see Figure l1 on page 218 of my paper). I will therefore explain the choice of a viscoelastic model in more detail and also make specific comments on the arguments given in his contribution. |