Investigation of the Horizontal Motion of Particle-Laden Jets
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
My comments are reported in the attached document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer of COMPUTATION,
On behalf of all authors, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your time and valuable comments and thoughtful suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Investigation of the Horizontal Motion of Particles Laden Jets” (ID: computation-708251) which was submitted to COMPUTATION journal for review and publication.
We addressed all your suggestions in the modified manuscript, and we believe these modifications have improved the quality of the manuscript. In addition, all of your questions are answered in detail in the attached document.
Regards,
Ali Tarokh
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General overview
The paper looks at simulating Particles Laden Jets in a range of Reynolds numbers, Stokes numbers and mass loadings. Some minor changes may be needed to enhance the explanation of the flow to make the paper suitable for publication. Thus, I recommend minor revision of the paper before it is accepted for publication. A list of major and minor comments are provided below:
Major Comments:
The information on boundary conditions are missing In the validation study (Fig. 2), there are some discrepancies between results that are not addressed by the authors. The results match at z/D=20 but they are over- and under-estimated at higher and lower Z values. This should be at least mentioned and a justification provided. Image quality of figures should be improved. In Fig. 4, how do the authors argue that mp/md=0.53 does not deviates much from the other cases? The variation appears large beyond z/D>20. A more detailed discussion of the physics as it relates to describing the figures could be helpful to the reader.
Minor Comments:
Line 92: The line should not be indented. Line 97: “Where …” should be lowercased. Line 133: “OpenFOAM packages …” should be changed to “OpenFOAM package…” Fig. 1 should be corrected since the numbers are misplaced over the arrows. Line 157: missing words… Line 160: “… wh,ich…” should be corrected. Fig. 4. the Reynolds number should be specified in the caption and not the legend. Line 215: “…further” should be changed to “farther”.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer of COMPUTATION,
On behalf of all authors, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your time and valuable comments and thoughtful suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Investigation of the Horizontal Motion of Particles Laden Jets” (ID: computation-708251) which was submitted to COMPUTATION journal for review and publication.
We addressed all your suggestions in the modified manuscript, and we believe these modifications have improved the quality of the manuscript. In addition, all of your questions are answered in detail in the attached document.
Regards,
Ali Tarokh
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I acknowledge the effort made by the authors in responding to my earlier comments, and I am satisfied with most of their replies. This convinced me to change my initial recommendation from "Reject" to "Major Revision". In the attached report, the four points which deserve further attention are highlighted with additional comments.
Before I can recommend acceptance of their manuscript, the authors must necessarily justify the definion employed for the particle response time, which at first glance might appear apparently inconsistent with the case studies under consideration. They should also address the other minor issues highlighted in the report.
Finally, the authors' reply to my earlier comment #5 clarified why they introduced an advection diffusion equation. However, my suggestion is not to use statements such as "distribution of the continuum phase" when referring to the solution of the advection diffusion equation. Instead, I would stress that the paper is focused on the difference between the fluid dynamic behaviour of a passive scalar tracer (that is, the solution of the advection diffusion equation), and that of inertial particles (that is, the output of the Lagrangian particle tracking equations). This would avoid possible misunderstanding and further increase the value of this work.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer of COMPUTATION,
On behalf of all authors, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your time and valuable comments and thoughtful suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Investigation of the Horizontal Motion of Particles Laden Jets” (ID: computation-708251) which was submitted to COMPUTATION journal for review and publication.
We addressed all your additional comments in the modified manuscript, and we believe these modifications have improved the quality of the manuscript. In addition, all of your questions are answered in detail in the attached document.
Should you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Regards,
Ali Tarokh
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The quality of images and figures are not yet fixed. When I zoom-in, the plots are very blurry. Maybe using TIFF, EPS or other quality files will fix the issue. English language modification suggestion in Line 192 = "... because of higher decay rate, there are simulation results with underestimate value comparing experimental results... ". This reads strangely, please modify.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer of COMPUTATION,
On behalf of all authors, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your time and valuable comments and thoughtful suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Investigation of the Horizontal Motion of Particles Laden Jets” (ID: computation-708251) which was submitted to COMPUTATION journal for review and publication.
We addressed all your additional comments in the modified manuscript, and we believe these modifications have improved the quality of the manuscript.
Should you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Regards,
Ali Tarokh
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the effort put by the authors in addressing my additional comments. I recognize that the manuscript has considerably improved from the initial version, and I am now pleased to recommend its acceptance for publication in the "Computation" journal.
Reviewer 2 Report
I thank the authors. They did address my concerns.
