Experimental Assessment of Corrugated Rectangular Actuators on Supersonic Jet Mixing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please, find my overall recommendation and comments in the attached report.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This experimental work deals with the mixing of a supersonic jet controlled with rectangular actuators. However, the authors should address a few critical issues, and some of them are listed below:
- In academic writing, the use of 'But' should be avoided.
- Authors should be careful about capitalizing the letter, in a sentence.
- In page 3, line 118, the sentence "the effects of ........." should be corrected/modified. "the Effects..." or "the effect..." which one is correct?
- What is meant by "the troublesome number" mentioned in line 137?
- In line 119, "Shadowgraph..." or "shadowgraph..." which one should be used? Hope, "shadowgraph" would be the correct choice when using in a sentence. Similar thing can be found throughout the manuscript. Please check.
- In line 154 through 157, the tense should be corrected.
- Although the authors mentioned that the blockage by the tabs kept below 5% to minimize the loss of thrust, they are requested to present the results for thrust loss. In other words, if the jet core length is close to zero, what would be the thrust for this jet. Please reflect on it and justify the answer.
- In line 211, what is meant by " as it were"?
- The authors are only presenting the mixing performance by means of a decrease in jet core length. Does it make a true sense? Please justify your idea with proper evidence.
- So far, the results from equation 2 are negative? Justify.
- In line 325, there is a repetition of words.
- As mentioned on page 17 and 18, the jet is oscillatory. Does it make a true sense to present the instantaneous results only? The authors should present time-dependent results instead. Justify.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Please, find my comments in the attached report.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors are thanked for their effort in reviewing the manuscript. However, a detailed discussion about the following points, which were raised during the first review, should be included in the manuscript as well with appropriate references.
4. What is meant by "the troublesome number" mentioned in line 137?
7. Although the authors mentioned that the blockage by the tabs kept below 5% to minimize the loss of thrust, they are requested to present the results for thrust loss. In other words, if the jet core length is close to zero, what would be the thrust for this jet. Please reflect on it and justify the answer.
8. The authors are only presenting the mixing performance by means of a decrease in jet core length. Does it make a true sense? Please justify your idea with proper evidence.
* The review responses of the above-mentioned points should be included in the manuscripts, as well.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I thank the authors for their answers. I think that minimum efforts have been made to improve Figures 16-18. However, I will not insist on this point any longer and I defer the final decision of their acceptance to the editor/editorial board. On the other side, the authors must explicitly report the values of the blockage ratio for the different tabs under investigation in the paper and comment on the effects of the differences of these values on their findings. According to my computations:
| D_exit | 13 | mm | ||||
| Area_exit | 132.73 | mm2 | ||||
| Plain area (mm2) | Corrugation area (mm2) | Single Tab Frontal Area (mm2) | Single Tab Blockage (%) | Total Tab Frontal Area (mm2) | Total Blockage ratio (%) | |
| Plain | 3.30 | 0.00 | 3.30 | 2.49 | 6.60 | 4.97 |
| Rect | 6.00 | 1.28 | 4.72 | 3.56 | 9.44 | 7.11 |
| Circ | 6.00 | 2.65 | 3.35 | 2.52 | 6.69 | 5.04 |
| Tria | 6.00 | 2.65 | 3.35 | 2.52 | 6.70 | 5.04 |
The authors are warmly asked to confirm or correct the above. In the paper, they claim "The geometric blockage provided by the tabs was kept below 5% to minimize the loss of thrust." However, it is evident that this is not the case for the rectangular corrugated tabs. Therefore, the authors must amend their assertion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
