Investigation and Analysis of Acoustojets by Spectral Element Method
, Ibrahim H. Giden 2, Shadi Alboon 1, Wael Hosny Fouad Aly 1, Ahmed Youssef 1 and Hamza Kurt 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article deals with the 2D simulation of acoustic wave scattering around a circle. The formation of acoustic jets and subwavelength localization is reported. The article is suitable for publication but some questions have to be answered before publication.
- The English of the article has to be reviewed, there are some langage mistakes.
- The authors do not provide information about the simulation : did they use a commercial software ? did they implement the SEM method ? what numerical parameters have been used ? what mesh ? what are the typical computational times ? where the pml are placed ? what is their depth ?
- The authors performed a 2D study, while a 3D study is more realistic, why ?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, the authors performed the numerical analysis of acoustic wave scattering using spectral element method (SEM). It is also found that concurrence of both whispering gallery modes and acoustic jet can be reached via parameter optimization, which benefits applications using acoustic waves.
In my opinion, the overall quality of the manuscript is decent. I have some minor comments and hope that the authors could address them.
1. line 80 & 81: denoted by what? I suppose Omega is missing
2. Line 118: The statement "proposed SEM model has the capability of scaling its size". Could the authors cite appropriate literature or explain why this is the case?
3. Line 120 & 121: could the authors explain clearly what R represents? It is stated that R is the radius. But from my understanding of the numerical calculation, R is a ratio which is unitless.
4. In figure 3, there is a missing lambda after 0.67.
5. In the discussion section, the authors presented results from three sets of parameters for comparison with the best field enhancement reached with {R,m} = {3.5, 2.89}. Could the authors give some insights on how the parameter optimization is done? what is the process flow to reach the best results?
6. The content presentation in the discussion section can be improved. There is redundant context within this portation. (e.g. the figure description/caption).
7. Line 155: Is the I/I0 ratio = 3.7 for Figure 3? This does not reflect what I read in figure 3, and if this were the case, the field enhancement then did not change between figure 1 parameters (also = 3.7) and figure 3 parameters, which is not rational.
8. Line 129: Punctuation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors answered to my questions successfully. The article can be accepted for publication in the journal.
