Experimental and Mathematical Tools to Predict Droplet Size and Velocity Distribution for a Two-Fluid Nozzle

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The presented experimental study is interesting and the implemented algorithm for determining the phase velocities and Sauter's mean diameter seems to be novel. I have expected more information about MATLAB model as well as uncertainty analysis.

Author Response

Thanks for your comment. More information is provided on MATLAB and uncertainty analysis in the revised manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Review on the manuscript fluids-1016615 entitled

“Experimental and Mathematical Tools to Predict Droplet Size and
Velocity Distribution for a Two-Fluid Nozzle”

The work presents interesting study on fluids atomization. Authors present the one-dimensional mathematical model based on conservation equations in integral form. Additionally the experiment is provided as well to validate the model. The purpose of the paper is to show impact of feed solutions on droplet size and velocity distribution in a two-fluid nozzle design. The topic is within the range of interest of the Fluids, however it does not adhere to the journal’s standards. Some issues have to be improved as well:

• Introduction slightly confuses the reader from line 67. Authors firstly describe three methods for atomization modeling. Than describe four method of computational fluid dynamics. Than write about integral method. In line 109 the purpose of the study is given however it is not clear for the reader, especially which method is used. Moreover, in opinion of this reviewer, the lines 119-149 should be moved to another section, not in introduction, for instance to section 3.
• What was the seeding? Please add the parameters used during the experiments.
• What are the measurements uncertainties, especially for the velocity? Please address these issues thoroughly in the manuscript.
• The experiment is poorly described. It has to be significantly improved (flow details, experimental procedures, uncertainties, PIV details, plane of measurements, dimensions, etc.).
• How did authors obtain Eq. (7)? Citations should be given. Also the value if K = 4e-4 should be better explained.
• More details on numerical method used during calculations have to be given (method, schemes, convergence criteria, comparison to available data in literature, thermophysical properties, etc.)
• It is not clear how the results were elaborated, e.g. Fig. 4.
• What is the reason that model firstly agrees well with experiment (till x = 0.05 m in Fig. 5) and then it overpredicts the results?
• Validation of the model has to be better justified than only by section 4.1.
• Nomenclature is not complete.

Author Response

See the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

For future, the Authors should precisely state in the rebuttalls what has been changed and in which lines and pages of the revised manuscript.