Next Article in Journal
Flow Inside the Sidewall Gaps of Hydraulic Machines: A Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of the Preheated Oxidizer Temperature on Soot Formation and Flame Structure in Turbulent Methane-Air Diffusion Flames at 1 and 3 atm: A CFD Investigation
Previous Article in Journal
Selecting E-Mobility Transport Solutions for Mountain Rescue Operations
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 13
Issue 24
10.3390/en13246616
Review Report
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Numerical Simulation of a GH2/LOx Single Injector Combustor and the Effect of the Turbulent Schmidt Number

Energies 2020, 13(24), 6616; https://doi.org/10.3390/en13246616
by Won-Sub Hwang 1, Woojoo Han 2, Kang Y. Huh 2, Juhoon Kim 3, Bok Jik Lee 3 and Jeong-Yeol Choi 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Energies 2020, 13(24), 6616; https://doi.org/10.3390/en13246616
Submission received: 5 November 2020 / Revised: 8 December 2020 / Accepted: 10 December 2020 / Published: 15 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Numerical Simulation of Turbulent Combustion)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, the present paper is well written. The Introduction is written in the concise manner, e.g., Table 1. The method is also well explained. The conclusions are supported by results. The reviewer suggest to accept the present paper.

However, some minors revision should be done before finalizing the final version. Some suggestions are written as below:

  1. LES is written in the keywords but not in the abstract. Please mention that LES method is used for the numerical method.
  2. Line 58, what is the conclusion for RANS method compare to the experimental result? The conclusion should be addressed in order to know the limitation of RANS model.
  3. Line 192. Fig.3 --> Figure 3. Please do not abbreviate the word in the beginning of sentence. Please check the whole manuscript.
  4. Please mention that the OpenFOAM is used as CFD code.
  5. Did the authors use a blockMesh for generating the computational grid? or another software? Please describe in the manuscript.
  6. Line 243, time step fixed 5e7 s or 5e-7 s? Please confirm.

Author Response

Please find the authors' reponse as attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper well written but because these are numerical results it would be desirable to add a part related to the verification procedure of the code. It must include a grid sensitivity test, shock capturing, accumulation of errors and convergence analysis. A grid sensitivity test is very important because observed dependence on Schmidt number is very weak and it is not clear if this is a real physical effect captured here or some numerical issues.

Line 243 I believe must be 10^-7 s

Conclusions must be shorter and did not repeat all details of the simulation.

It is not clear, what are the main conclusions of the paper?

What is the main contribution of authors to combustion science?

I suggested this part must be re-written to clarify those issues.

Author Response

Pleasefind authors's reponse as attched

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No comments.

Back to TopTop