Numerical Investigation of a Vortex Diverter Designed for Improving the Performance of the Submerged Inlet

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a numerical investigation of a vortex diverter for the submerged inlet. The paper is well-written and describes the concepts very clearly. I suggest the manuscript be accepted after some minor revisions. Some comments that can improve the quality of the manuscript: 

1. It would be good if the Nomenclature is arranged alphabetically in order. 

2. The numerical simulation is carried out using the FLUENT. In addition to the description given in Section 2.2, please also include some brief descriptions of how the transport properties are modeled. 

3. It is not very clear how the low-pressure region is defined. Is this region different from the AIP section? 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is well written. No significant English editing is required for the manuscript. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review:

 

-The current paper is too long and reads like a project report of a design study for a company. Several important issues are missing, e.g., repeatability, novelty, or scientific content related to explaining why we see something rather than simply describing the figures. I think also the introduction is not that appropriate in the sense that it doesn’t clearly discuss the state of the art and also the broader context of the research/investigations, etc.

 

-The following references must also be mentioned in the introduction and possible when presenting/discussing the results:

[1] Akkermans at al (2008): The three-dimensional structure of an electromagnetically generated dipolar vortex in a shallow fluid layer, Physics of Fluids, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3005452.

[2] Duran-Matute  et al (2010): Scaling of decaying shallow axisymmetric swirl flows, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112009994034.

[3] Duran-Matute  et al (2010): Dynamics and structure of decaying shallow dipolar vortices, Physics of Fluids, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3518468.

 

-The used numerical equations are not explicitly stated. This should be improved. I assume it is RANS, however, this is not stated by the authors clearly. Or is it uRANS?

 

-In figure 1: I think the definition of the angles, more specifically the alpha is rather strange. I would denote this as a negative angle of attack. Or is alpha not angle of attack???

 

-Figure 2: it looks like the wake part of the domain is rather coarsely meshed. Or at least the mesh coarsening is rather abrupt and close to the base of the vehicle. To what extent the authors can state that this has no negative influence on the results, as the flow is still sub-sonic??

 

-The boundary conditions should be better explained. Also in connection to the “real” situation, to what extent this is a simplification or not. Figure 3 does not help in this respect as it is not appreciable from this figure at all.

 

-Figure 5: what are the values in the CFD result in the dark red region which seems to be over-saturated? That area seems to have significant higher values than the experiment and also seem to go to 1,00….

 

 

-caption of Figure 6 should be corrected/improved. I don’t see the “intake mechanism” here. Also, the discussion in the text is rather short and trivial, so I think that in the current state this figure can be removed.

 

-In section 4.1: the authors should explicitly state that these geometry modifications have not considered the structural integrity issues that might result from the changes.

 

-In text connected to Fig. 15: please explicitly state which velocity components were considered for the streamlines. Also, are these instantaneous velocity components?

 

-Fig. 17 is in the current state completely useless as nothing can be appreciated. Improve or delete.

 

-In section 4.3 (and possibly elsewhere): the authors might want to rethink or better motivate the number of digits behind the comma.

 

-From section 4.3 it reads more like a project report related to some design study for a company. This must be improved significantly. The authors should reduce the 29 pages of the paper into possibly half, focusing on the generic results that can be learned from this investigation, and connect these to physical mechanisms. Not go into length into the effects of changing variable x on variable y and just stating what is in the diagrams.

 

-The literature should be listed in a more consistent way, the format seems to be changing while going though the list.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adjusted the paper in a satisfactory manner: I advise publication based on their changes and the replies to my questions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-