Accelerating FVM-Based Parallel Fluid Simulations with Better Grid Renumbering Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper should be improved according to the comments below:

1)   I suggest that the abstract should contain significant results with a certain value or percentage. 

2)  State your research hypothesis more clearly, better explain the urgency of its investigation.

3)   The introduction is not well written, there is no in-depth analysis for published works. I suggest that the gaps/problem may be stated better. Authors should phrase the gaps/problems in the scientific context of your investigation, as opposed to these generic statements. 

4)  In your result and discussion section, please link your empirical results with a broader and deeper literature review. This is to ensure that the results offer expected outcomes.

5)  I suggest that authors should systematize and point out the most important conclusions from the analysis in summary.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript titled "Accelerating FVM-based parallel fluid simulations with better grid renumbering methods" deals with finite volume method based parallel fluid simulations. The manuscript is overall well written and it presented novel ideas and results. Although the manuscript has many positives but still it needs many improvements before reaching to any decision about its acceptance. Hence I recommend Major Revisions with the following comments:

1. Avoid to use abbreviations in the title, as the mentioned abbreviation is not too much familiar and this is the reason that the authors defined in the manuscript twice.

2. Historical background needs improvement.

3. Quality of the presentation is not up to the mark, it must be improved.

4. In introduction Section, instead of writing Sloan S. W. [14], write Sloan [14] and instead of writing Georges Akhras, Gouri Dhatt [15] write Akhras and Dhatt [15]. Further handle this issue in the whole Introduction Section.

5. It should be clearly mentioned that the authors are mentioning which LU-Decomposition Method.

6. All Figures and Tables are not properly captioned, for example see Figures 4 and 5 on page 7. Caption these properly.

7. Recheck carefully the Algorithm 1.

8. Provide complete list of 12 authors for reference 1 and take care of this issue for the rest of the references.

9. Always use "and" between second last and last author in reference list.

10. The author Xiao-Wei Guo has 5 references that should be limited to 2 to 3.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The paper can be published after minor revision.

English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors presented a comprehensive study on their proposed grid renumbering method. Although the basic logic of this study is simple, it is indeed an interesting view to discuss. The quality of writing and figures is good, and the discussion is comprehensive. Nevertheless, there are still few points should be addressed or clarified before publication.

1.      The proposed CQ method seems not have significant improvement compared with Greedy method, the authors claimed that CQ has better grid quality while Greedy requires less time consumption. However, the most important factor we care about on numerical methods is the simulation accuracy. The selected neighbor elements may affect the final prediction. It is strongly recommended to add a small section comparing the performances of simulation results (like pressure field, velocity field, better compared with experimental results).

2.      Some relative papers discussing the performance of methods used for solving time-dependent boundary conditions and accuracy of simulating hydrodynamics can be referred:

“Improvement on Simulation Methods of Fluid Transient Processes in Turbine Tailrace Tunnel” https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4048325.

”Assessment of Very High Order of Accuracy in Implicit LES models”

3.      The tense used throughout the text should be modified. For example:

Pls use pass tense in the following conditions: “we quantitively analyzed”, “it was found”, “Results showed”……

4.      Figure 2: Font too small, not clear.

In summary, I would recommend this manuscript process a minor revision before considering acceptance.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript can be accepted in its current form

Reviewer 2 Report

I am satisfied with the revised version and so I recommend that the manuscript can be accepted for publication in its current form.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf