Predictions of Vortex Flow in a Diesel Multi-Hole Injector Using the RANS Modelling Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The Authors present a numerical investigation of the coherent vortex structures developing in an automotive injector. In my opinion some issues should be addressed before the manuscript is suitable for publication.
Some terms in the introductions are very specific to the application (i.e. "full needle lift", "sac") and not easy to grasp. In order to broaden the potential audience, the Authors should consider including a schematics of the injector system and a clear explanation of the application-specific terminology.
Section 2 is quite confusing as the Authors convey the details of an experiment from literature references as well as a pictures of their test apparatus and set-up (Figure 1 and 2). How is this section relevant to the present work?
Many times the experimental data used as a reference are not clearly disclosed. In Figure 4 what experimental data was used as a reference? Did the Authors carry out experimental validation?
Submission Date 20 October 2021
Date of this review 02 Nov 2021 08:51:30
Reviewer 2 Report
​Paper deals with important tasks. Authors considered a RANS Turbulence Modeling for prediction the internal flow in a vertical axis-symmetrical multi-hole diesel fuel injector at non-cavitating conditions.
Paper has scientific novelty and great practical value.
It has a logical structure, all necessary sections. Paper is technically sound. Experimental section is very good.
The proposed approach is logical, results are clear.
Suggestions:
- It would be good to add clear point-by-point the main contributions in the end of the Introduction section.
- It would be good to add the full remainder of this paper
- Related works section should be extended using new studies. The authors should take into consideration papers from 2018-2021
- Conclusion section should be extended using: 1) numerical results obtained in the paper; 2) limitations of the proposed approach; 3) prospects for the future research.
- Most of all references are outdated. Please fix it using 3-5 years old papers in high-impact journals.
Other suggestions
- Most of the figures have a bad quality. Please fix it.
Submission Date 20 October 2021
Date of this review 7 Oct 2021 14:52:38
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is technically very sound and provides a decent contribution in subject matter. However, some minor improvements can be made prior to acceptance and publication. 1. The authors must include the SI units of physical quantities in nomenclature table. 2. The discussion is OK but It can be enhanced further to help readers to understand the results in a better way. 3. The authors should add more details to the numerical methodology section especially some mathematical terms. 4. Is there any reference to the values given in table 2? 5. Fig. 5 needs further explanation.
Submission Date2 0 October 2021
Date of this review 02 Nov 2021 12:15:42
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I thank the Authors for addressing all my concerns.
The article is in my opinion suitable for publication.
