Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The present manuscript is well written and gives plenty of results on compressible fluid flows based on the modified turbulent models. The manuscript is suitable for publication in the ‘Turbulence’ issue. The reviewer recommends the publication of the paper if the authors could consider the following questions and make them be reflected in the manuscript.

1. There are minor mistakes in the manuscript, the author should go through the text and correct them all, e.g. the section numbers on page3, the meaning of c_v in the nomenclature section, the subscripts of the variables and non-dimensional numbers, etc.
2. The compressibility effects on the accuracy of the models can be discussed in the manuscript based on the present results, as well as the deep explanation behind discrepancies.

Author Response

Responses  to Reviewer 1 comments

English is revised.

1- the corrections are made. cv is corrected, &lso the subscripts of the variables and the non-dimensional numbers.

2-Regarding the requested discussion, we have added sentences, see ligne 425-431.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review for: A Compressible Turbulence Model for the Pressure Strain

 

 

 

In this paper, the authors try to extend the capability of LRR incompressible model to correctly predicts the compressible turbulence at high-speed shear flow problems. Basically, in the LRR model, four coefficients C1 to C4, need to be defined to calculate the pressure strain correctly. Scholars including Adumitroaie et al., Huang et al., and Marzougui et al. considered that these coefficients are only the function of turbulent Mach number. However, the authors showed in their previous publication that they can get better results by considering these coefficients as a function gradient Mach number and turbulent Mach number. Therefore, in this paper, the authors modified the coefficient suggested by Adumitroaie et al., Huang et al., and Marzougui et al. as functions of gradient Mach number and turbulent Mach number.

The authors validated their model for compressible turbulent homogeneous shear flow and compressible mixing layers cases. The results are validated against DNS data and original models that they deviate from. They show with these modifications; the results better match the results of DNS.

 

The topics covered by the manuscript fit well in the Journal of fluids. Although the presented results seem promising, the paper falls short of two significant problems. Therefore, I recommend publication after revising the following issues.

 

1. Remarks

Here are the points that should be considered:

1.1   Major remarks

1. The reference numbers do not match the numbers in the main article. The authors need to go through all the references and make sure they are matched with the numbers in the article. As two examples in Table 1, the reference number for Marzougui and Adumitroaie articles is eleven and five, respectively, which are not correct. The mismatch can be seen through the paper.
2. Section 3.1 (proposed models) the paper lacks the explanation of choosing C1 and C4 coefficients. Since the reference numbers are incorrect, the reviewer finds it impossible to understand what the authors did to develop the proposed formulation. I suggest the authors rewrite this part and explain how the authors come with the proposed formula more clearly. This part needs to be written in a way that the readers don’t need to go and check all the references.

1.2 Minor remarks

           

1. On line 22, it is unclear in the introduction; it is unclear where the universally accepted data is come from? Is it experimental or theoretical, or based on other simulations? Although you explain this later in the paper, the introduction part needs to be self-explanatory. The same sentence is seen in the last section of the introduction.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2 comments

-English is revised.

1-1 Majors remarks

1- The reference number is well checked. 

2- the expressions of the models are added to the manuscript, lines 165-183.

2-2Minor remarks

-The universal data is replaced by another sentence in line 22, and it's deleted from the introduction.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1.Please check whether the title of the table is centered.E.g.table 1,2,etc.

2.Please check whether the title of the picture is centered.E.g.figures 9,10,12,etc.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 3 comments

-English is revised

1- your recommendation is considerd.

2-We take into account your recommendation.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed all my comments and thus I suggest publishing it as it is.