Numerical Analysis on Effect of Structural Parameters on Flow Field and Internal Trajectory in Gas–Steam Ejection Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review Report on the manuscript entitled “Numerical Analysis on Effect of Structural Parameters on Flow 2 Field and Internal Trajectory in Gas-Steam Ejection Systems" by Bing Liu et al.

The following notes need to be taken into consideration for the manuscript to be accepted for publication in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering:

1.     Page 1; Line 41: The authors wrote “ . . . . Zhang et al. [9]”. It should be written as follows: “. . . . Zhang and Bao [9] “.

1.     Page 2; Line 57: The authors wrote “ . . . . Zhang et al. [13]”. It should be written as follows: “. . . . Zhang and Bao [13] “.

2.     Page 4; Line 133 and other locations follows: The authors should replace the word “gas” by “steam” or “vapor” because “gas” may be interpreted as Nitrogen, or Methane, or Carbon dioxide, . . . etc

3.     Page 4; Equation (2): The authors did not take into consideration the effects of the virtual mass (or added mass) into the momentum equation. The authors should at least consider it as a future work.

4.     Page 25; Reference 34: I searched the Journal of Solid Rocket Technology, Volume 2022 and could not find the paper of Chen, Z. et al. I have found different authors for the same paper title as follows:

Mei, H., Yi, J. and Boman, W. “ Research on Interior ballistic performance of piston-type horizontal ejection device”, MATEC Web of Conferences, 179, 03005 (2018). The authors may find it on the following webline:

  matecconf_2mae2018_03005.pdf

The authors should do the correction in the list of References and the place where they referred to the work.

5.     Page 25; Line 558: The authors wrote “ . . . Partical . . . “. It should be written as follows: “. . . .Particle . . . “.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Many thanks for your submitted paper. It was interesting but so many details are missing. Please find below comments on your work:

1- The paper English is very poor, my suggestion is to use grammar service and ask a native to improve it.

2- The Abstract is very short and not represent your work! 

3- In abstract you must represent some values and numbers quantitative not qualitative! We nee to see numbers.

4- The paper is written in active voice and used we ..... Usually in scientific writing we prefer passive voice.

5- The numerical part is super week! Not mentioned mesh types, not mentioned software properly and ....

6- Where can I find mesh dependency check in your work! 

7- All figures need more descriptions. Some of them are just reported with CFD and not properly described! 

8- All figures and curves must be supported with enough and scientific information.

9- Why such time steps are defined please describe in more details! 

10- You need a nomenclature as you didnt describe all terms and equations properly! 

11- You need to enlarge some figures to make them more visible! 

12- All figures and geometry must be supported with a proper coordinate! 

13- The geometry and dimensions must be clearly reported in a table! 

14- What is the novelty of your work and what is its application!

15- Please use the most recent references. As I can see some of your references are quite old! 

The paper English is very poor, my suggestion is to use grammar service and ask a native to improve it.

The paper is written in active voice and used we ..... Usually in scientific writing we prefer passive voice.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please find attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Satisfactory

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

A very nice and detailed work related to the Gas-Steam Ejection Systems is presented where structural parameters are evaluated. Overall its nice work but following points can further improve the study. 

1. Style and text size at various locations in the text are different with a number of typos. A thorough and careful review is needed. e.g. symbols for volume fraction in line 133 and 134 and in line 140. symbols for volume fraction in line 152 and in equations 4 and 5.

2. Grid Independence study for computational work in missing

3. Use either TABLE-I and TABLE-II or TABLE-1 and TABLE-2....

4. table 2 column 4, should it be "number of HOLES per row"?

5. Fig 6 the launcher and missile must be separately compared. Comparing different geometries in the same e.g. fig. 6(d, e, f, g and h) with Fig. 6(a-d) in same figure is not justified neither it is mentioned in the caption of the figure. how the device differs in shape with time? The same should be avoided for other figures.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors have improved the article by great deal and this article is now suitable for publication in JMSE.