Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attached report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See attached 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents two numerical solution schemes for the Rayleigh-Plesset equation, which is used to study the dynamics of bubbles in fluid flows. The proposed schemes are shown to be robust for a wide range of ambient pressure profiles. However, some questions need to be answered:

- Line 177: what is the reason for choosing backward / forward difference method? what comparisons were done with higher order discritizations?

- In Section 5, Please: include a spacial convergence report in addition to the temporal report. Also please add the order of convergence for all. 

- Better repeat the convergence analysis for a case in which the analytical results are present, e.g. section 3.1

- Please provide more detailed description of the cases to help with reporducibility of the results, domain discretization, etc. 

- AFAIU, all the cases are two-dimensional? If so it would be interesting to see the application of your method to a 3D test case. 

some minor changes:

- there are syntax errors (line 7 systems, line 49 combine, line 149 two "in this study", line 160 8-, etc)

- there are missed references (probably due to compiler error, e.g. line 244, line 287, line 319, line 330, line 341, line 363, etc.)

- table 5: 3e-11 -> 3e^-11, etc. 

- Figure 4 is redundant

Author Response

See attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall review comments

The manuscript applied the finite difference-based prediction-correction scheme and Euler method-based scheme to solving RP equation. Results find that Euler method is more accurate, and converges faster but consumes more computational time and requires the ambient pressure history to be known. This study showed that the stiffness issue of the full form of Rayleigh-Plesset (RP) equation could be addressed by approximating the minimum bubble radius with a truncation value, which has certain academic research and practical engineering value.

I consider the content of this manuscript will meet the reading interests of the readers of the journal. However, there are writing and format issues, and the discussion and explanation should be further improved. Therefore, I suggest giving a minor revision and the authors need to clarify some issues or supply more validation data to enrich the content.

 

1. It is a detailed report. However, you shall underscore the scientific value-added to your paper in your abstract. Please look at articles we have published for models. Your abstract should clearly state the essence of the problem you are addressing, what you did and what you found and recommend. That would help a prospective reader of the abstract to decide if they wish to read the entire article.

2. There are some typos “Error!” e.g., lines 244, 287, 330, etc.

3. As you are using the applied finite difference-based prediction-correction scheme and Euler method-based scheme, the major contribution to this field should be indicated clearly, maybe in the last paragraph of the introduction. And the motivation and novelty of the work must be added in detail.

4. The quality of Fig. 1 needs to be improved. Currently, it is too sketchy and not journal-quality.

5. The author discussed researchers using “The Venturi tube ... to generate hydrodynamic cavitation...” Although the thermal effect is not considered in this article, Since the thermal effect plays an important in certain conditions, I suggest also introducing the current experimental work on investigating the thermal effects of cavitation in Venturi. Kindly add the reference of [Energy (2022): 124426.; Ultrasonics Sonochemistry (2022): 106035.; Journal of Cleaner Production (2022): 130470.; International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 170 (2021): 120970.].

6. The font size of all the figures shall be consistent; e.g., Figs 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, etc, might be too large.

 7. Line 291, “It is clear that two proposed solution schemes slightly overestimate the bubble size compared to Alehossein’s method”. Can you clarify why such a difference happens? Is Alehossein’s method using a different numerical method, or there’s some modification on the R-P model?

 

8. Line 414, “The study has shown that the proposed schemes are more robust and capable of solving RP equation ...” than what? Again, please make sure your conclusions’ section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your results. Highlight the novelty of your study. Clearly discuss what the previous studies that you are referring to are. What are the Research Gaps/Contributions?

Author Response

See attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf