Refraction of Oblique Shock Wave on a Tangential Discontinuity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Respected Editor,

I read this paper in detail. Authors studied on the relationships which define the type of reflected discontinuity and its parameters. Domains of existence of various shock-wave structures with reflected disturbances of two types and boundaries  between them were defined in the paper. The domains of parameters with one or two solutions exist for the characteristic refraction. Conditions of the regular refraction and the Mach refraction were formulated by them, and boundaries between those two refraction types were defined for various types of gases. Refraction phenomena in various engineering problems (hydrocarbon gaseous fuel and its combustion products, diatomic gas, fuel mixture of oxygen and hydrogen etc.) were discussed in a detailed manner.

This paper needs to be modified by follows before acepting

1. "Keywords" should be extended a little more.
2. They need to write these papers such as [25-31], clearly.
3. They need to add more information about the "Regular refraction".
4. At the end of equation (4), they need to put POINT.
5. At the end of equation (5), they need to put POINT.
6. At the end of equation (6), they need to put POINT.
7. At the end of equation (8), they need to put COMMA.
8. At the end of all equations must be putted "COMMA" or "POINT" according to the typing rules. Therefore, they need to pre-check all the paper.
9. Conclusion section is too short. It must be extended a little more by giving some important properties of new findings of this paper.
10. The Abstract should contain answers to the following questions: What problem was studied and why is it important? What methods were used? What are the important results? What conclusions can be drawn from the results? What is the novelty of the work and where does it go beyond previous efforts in the literature?
11. The Introduction should make a compelling case for why the study is useful along with a clear statement of its novelty or originality by providing relevant information and providing answers to basic questions such as: What is already known in the open literature? What is missing (i.e., research gaps)? What needs to be done, why and how? Clear statements of the novelty of the work should also appear briefly in the Abstract and Conclusions sections.

After these modifications, this paper may be accepted to publish

With my best regards,

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is devoted to the refraction of an oblique shock wave on a tangential discontinuity and critical conditions for various refraction structure. The problem is interesting and the results may be useful  provided the paper  is substantially improved, according to the following suggestions.

1) In the end of Introduction, the problem to be studied should be more clearly defined (what exactly remains to be studied and what you will consider, for instance, lines 87-88, "reflected disturbances of two types" should be clearly defined) and the outline of the paper should be given.

2) The technical details should be greatly improved. I just use section 2 to show you why it is unclear to readers.

1. Page 2. Line 97. What means left discontinuity and right discontinuity? Do they mean left going shock wave and right-going shock wave, etc?
2. Page 3. The flow parameters should be defined, for instance, you should say that M+ and M- denote the Mach numbers.
3. The various regions (2 or 3) should be marked in Figure 1.
4. The shock polar in Figure 2 is unclear. You should define J and beta.
5. Do you mean beta is the shock angle? The word “angles of flow turn” (line 123) is not a standard term.
6. I do not understand equation (3). How (4) is obtained?
7. I have the same difficulty in understanding the next equations. If you use classic shock relations, you should state that your equations are or follow from classic shock relations.

3)  I totally understand that Russian scientists developed their our theory for shock waves. However, if you write papers to international journals, It would be better to follow conventional way to present the known theory. For instance, I guess that equation (4)  is the classical shock angle relation and equation (6) is the classical Mach number relation of oblique shock wave relations. These shock relations have their standard forms in any gas dynamic text books and are better followed. 

4）In the beginning of section 3, you should clearly state what is the purpose of this section.  I do not understand how equation (8) is obtained. The underlying assumption and the basic steps to derive it should be presented.

5)   Page 9. Figure 8 for Mach refraction is better to move into section 2, in a way parallel to Figure 1.

6)  Section 4 lacks comparison with other works. The authors should clearly point out whether the domain of existence problem has been studied by previous works. If yes, what are your new finding compared to other works? 

7) The conclusion is poorly written. In conclusion the main findings should be summarized and how your work advances the subject should be pointed out. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the present work, domains of existence of various shock-wave structures with reflected disturbances of two types and boundaries between them are defined. This paper is organized well in contents and structure. The figure quality is good. I prefer to give minor review before its acceptance. 

Specific comments:

1. Try to find some numerical and experimental data to validate or support the present results. 
2. More details can be added in the conclusions. New findings should be highlighted in this part.
3. Some spelling or grammar mistake or error should be reviewed carefully.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Now the paper can be published provided the following minor points are corrected or addressed.

1) I find that some author names in the reference list are not correctly spelled. Please check the spelling one by one, to ensure correct spelling.

2) When you cite a specific work, it is sometimes better to cite the authors (plus the numbering). 

3) In appendix A, you provide a number of figures. You should add some text in this appendix, like "The domains of existence for M_=2 is shown in Figure A1", etc. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf