Review on the Recent Numerical Studies of Liquid Atomization
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe review is a good compilation of information - both on the atomization phenomena and the modeling strategies. In general it is felt that more references could have been cited by the authors.
I have included few more comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The sentence construction needs revisiting in few places. And a few typos have been found - as noted in review comments document.
In general it is felt that quality of English could be improved. I would suggest sentences to be kept short, simple and to the point.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI expect clear definitions from reviews, e.g. what is atomization or what is break up? These definitions or distinctions between breakup and atomization are not provided but are essential. I even have the impression that the authors confuse breakup and atomization. E.g. "Therefore, it is the primary and secondary atomization that play A vital role instead of the droplets collision and coalescence."
The article is very long and not to the essence. It is difficult to follow the article because of the structure. The reader has to know what atomization is to understand the introduction. However, atomization is explained thereafter.
Many paragraphs lack references. E.g. there is no reference on page 4 except the figure. The importance of non-dimensional numbers could be underlined by literature, e.g. "Sensitivity of VOF simulations of the liquid jet breakup to physical and numerical parameters".
The authors write about colliding jets. However, also pulsation can help the breakup process, which the authors should incorporate in their review. See e.g. "Enhanced liquid–gas mixing due to pulsating injection" or "Analysis of vortical structures in intermittent jets".
The authors describe long lists in the sections "Application cases". It is questionable what the readers benefit from these descriptions. This should be improved by highlighting special innovations while providing literature with key parameters, such as cell counts, turbulence model, ... , in tables.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are several language errors in the manuscript, which should be improved. Sometimes, I cannot understand what the authors want to say, e.g. "Under different combinations of fluids properties and flow speeds, primary atomization would demonstrate clear visual distinction, forming the so-called different atomization regimes." Are you saying that primary atomization has different atomization regimes?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, the manuscript is well-written, using reasonably good English. The text appears to be a useful review and detailed summary of the subject.
I have the following specific comments and (hopefully) constructive questions:
- Abstract: In the context of the sentence where the word "verification" appears, I believe it would be better to use the word "validation" instead, since the sentence pertains to comparison with experimental data.
- Abstract: "smoothed particle hydrodynamics, et. al" is probably better write as "smoothed particle hydrodynamics, etc."
- Introduction: I could not find a definition for the abbreviations: PLA, ABS. It would be useful to define them.
- Sec 3.2 to me seems too detailed within the context of the paper. More useful could be a higher-level summary of the most important problems and potential future directions on how to address the problems with these interface-capturing methods specific to the liquid-atomization problem area.
- Sec 4. Particle tracking: Sec. 4.1 Mathematical description followed by Sec. 4.2 Breakup models, as presented, feels a little bit disconnected: I would include an immediate section (or at least a paragraph) on how breakup models (mathematically) are required / used in the mathematical description / numerical modeling using particle tracking.
- Sec 4.2: Please define the abbreviation LHG.
- Sec 4.2 lists some mathematical details of breakup models. Is this level of detail really necessary for such a review article? It would perhaps be more useful instead to discuss the main shortcomings of the underlying models and point to directions of useful further developments addressing some of the challenges.
- Sec 4.3 discusses some of previous simulations using various tools using particle tracking. This is useful, but it would be even more useful to include information on shortcoming of these previous simulations and discuss how such studies can be improved, e.g., in what directions new developments could be carried out in the future.
- Sec 5.2, same as above. I would recommend where adding what type of work is needed, and would discuss useful future directions.
- Sec 7: Please fix the typo: "sever" -> "severe".
- Sec 8 Summary and outlook. I think this last section could be usefully broken up and distributed in the previous sections discussing the methods. This section basically addresses some of my previous observations above about the lack of discussion on shortcomings of the methods and needed future directions. I think it would be easier to read the paper if the discussion of method-specific shortcomings and future directions appeared immediately with their sections. A final, now shorter, summary could still be included, summarizing the paper (instead of discussing details of methods development needs).
Some additional minor proofreading of the text, from the viewpoint of the English language, could still be performed and thus the manuscript improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for the revision.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors considered my comments and answered my questions.
