Micro-Vortex Generators on Transonic Convex-Corner Flow

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor,

 

Many thanks for giving me the opportunity to further help aerodynamic society. I have finished the review of the manuscript entitled “Micro-Vortex Generators on Transonic Convex-Corner Flow”. I believe that the authors have performed interesting sets of experiments. However, the manuscript still requires more improvement before it can be published (a major revision is required).

Different Micro vortex generators are investigated on a convex corner geometry. Two main general parts that I would suggest, is talking about the importance of the research and its application (We usually use flow control methods for a specific purpose such as flow separation over aerodynamic bodies such as wind turbines, cars, etc, for noise reduction, vibration control, etc.)

The authors should improve their manuscript in this regard.  Some other suggestions for modifications are also provided below.

 

Abstract

The authors should add some more explanations about the paper's storyline. Unfortunately, I don’t see any storyline in the abstract. The abstract should include some of the important findings that are presented in the Results part and Conclusion.

Introduction:

. Authors should re-arrange the introduction and explain the important parameters in play, previous works, and the previous findings of the important parameters. They also should clarify what they are going to do and what is the importance of their work. Other flow control methods for similar applications should be discussed.

• For example, in some areas, I think authors should provide more information to direct a reader’s mind and clarify their objective.
• I feel that the manuscript is provided with a very quick switch to the main technical terminologies/ concepts. For example in the Abstract authors start with a very narrow area in their first sentence (I suggest that authors should first explain the convex-flow in a sentence, to give more information to general readers) I can almost similar thing in the second sentence of the Introduction (the term “buffet boundary” should be explained a little bit).
• The first paragraph of the introduction usually is to explain the importance of the research and the problem the research is intended to investigate. More explanations and the history of the research should be presented in the following paragraphs.
• Page 2 Prag. 2: Authors claim that “MVGs with counter-rotating vanes (CRV), co-rotating vanes (Vane) or ramps (Ramp) are most commonly used to control boundary-layer separation.” This should be justified and have a reference.
• The Introduction should end with a paragraph stating the importance of the present research and questions to be answered. Also, it is preferred to give some information about the next sections inside the manuscript.

 

Section 2:

 

• A schematic figure of the wind tunnel’s test section or a real photo of the test section may help readers to have a better visual picture of the test setup.
• 1 should include dimensions

Section 2.2:

• A schematic view of test set-up and how the measurement devices are linked should be shown
• Page 2: What is the reference length for the Reynolds number? Reynolds number is usually calculated for a characteristic length. What does “…per meter” mean here?
• Page 2: “17 pressure taps…” Sentences usually do not begin with numbers and digits. Use “Seventeen”
• Page 3: Provide more information about the “The experimental uncertainty”
• Page 3: Ambient pressure and temperature about the test should be provided
• Page 3 The value of δ at 25 mm upstream of the convex corner is taken as 7 mm, according to two papers one of which is by the same author. The authors should mention the reason behind using the same value (7mm).

 

Section 2.3

• Page 4 parameters that are used should be explained. The Pw, Po, σp, T1 and T2.
• The two-threshold method (THM) that has been used by the authors refers to a reference that was published in 1989. The author should justify why they haven’t used any other improved methods.

 

3. Results and Discussion

• Page 5, last paragraph: Bouhadji and Braza [28] studied….
• I could not understand if the following two sentences are findings from this reference or they are the findings of the author’s research.
• Page 6: I think at the bottom of Page 6, Fig. 6 is explained but not mentioned.
• Page 7:
• “For the baseline case for M=0.83.” looks to be incomplete.
• Figs 5~9 : are well prepared. However, the manuscript only included reporting them. Authors should try to provide some physical interpretations of the results or their consequences for the readers, instead of only reporting the results. (I believe the explanation that is provided in the first 3 paragraphs in Section 3.3 is a good example for what I think should be done for Figs. 5~9).
• Page 9: The importance of fs should be discussed.
• The sentence, “The vertical and horizontal axes respectively correspond to fs and Mpeak” is redundant, since the figure is clear
• The "Introduction" should be expanded a little bit more. The importance of this work and its finding, the effects of finding and their effects on future research should be discussed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper can be accepted in the present format. However, there are still some typos that must be corrected.

Example "....do not following the global trend...." in PAGE 9.

Author Response

Thanks for the reviewer pointing the typo.

1. "do not following the global trend" is replaced by "do not follow the global trend"