Morphological Analysis of a Collapsing Cavitation Bubble near a Solid Wall with Complex Geometry
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the manuscript “Morphological analysis of collapsing cavitation bubble near solid wall with complex geometry” the effect of rugged surface on the bubble collapse dynamics are analysed, using a lattice Boltzmann method. The topic is highly relevant and the method is interesting. A highlight is Figure 9 where the effects of increasingly fractal boundaries of the same geometry on the bubble dynamics are studied. The manuscript however, needs to be significantly improved. Descriptions are unclear or missing and the transfer of the rather abstract lattice Boltzmann description to the physical world should be improved and some literature should be updated. In addition, the simulation of rebounding bubble and second collapse has not been validated and therefore it is not possible to scientifically discuss the rebounding bubble.
See details in the attached pdf document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The interaction mechanism between a cavitation bubble and a solid wall with a complex geometry is investigated using the pseudopotential MRT-LBM. The subject of the present work is interesting and relevant to the journal's aim and scope. However, the manuscript in its present form does not provide sufficient discussions on the results. The following deficiencies should be addressed before considering this work for publication in the Applied Sciences journals.
- The manuscript in its present form lacks a sufficient discussion on the results. All the results should be discussed in detail.
- The results should be described quantitatively instead of qualitatively.
- There is a problem with cross-referencing on line 49.
- The assumptions made to develop the present model should be stated in the paper.
- The limitations of the proposed model should be discussed in the paper.
- It is recommended that authors add a "nomenclature" to the paper.
- It is unclear from the text whether the authors have developed their solver or employed an already available solver. This should be stated in the paper.
- The sensitivity of numerical predictions to the computational grid and time-step size should be analysed, reported and discussed in the paper.
- A qualitative comparison is made in figure 4 to validate the numerically predicted results. The authors should quantify the numerical errors in the paper and discuss the sources of uncertainties.
- Units must be reported for the values reported in the paper.
- The problem considered in the present work is intrinsically three-dimensional. The authors should justify their assumption.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed the reviewer's comments in the revised version of the manuscript. The manuscript can be considered for publication after editorial corrections.
