Flow Characterization at Heated Air Supersonic Facility SBR-50
Ehsan Roohi
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I would like to thank you for sharing your extensive work. After reviewing your manuscript, I would like to accept it with minor revision as mentioned in below comments and suggestion. The suggestions are given I order to improve the manuscript, you are free to include or ignore. While I would like you to address the comments, while making revision or reasons for not including it:
1) (Comment): Abstract should also include major outcome of the study in the last line after comparing experimental and numerical results.
2) (Suggestion): Exposure time for Schlieren Visualization.
3) (Suggestion): Page 9: Can you also show the original two consecutive sample images with laser spark which is captured from HS camera and explain the steps to post process from the same to extract x-t information accordingly in detail (I know you have explained it L243, but you may be modifying the text based on added images).
4) (Comment): Have you achieved the grid independence results for numerical simulations?
5) (Comment): Can you include discussions for the outcome of the study in details, with mentioning the relevance of including numerical simulations and how the outcome of the study is useful in further measurements and operations of the facility.
6) (Comment): Can you also include uncertainty in the measurement (whether high / small) and how reliable the measurement method is.
7) (Suggestion): A small paragraph if the same measurement methods can be used for different facility at different operating parameters.
Looking forward an updated/ improved manuscript.
Regards,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this study, the flow characteristics of an air-heated supersonic wind tunnel are dealt with through experiments and computational simulations. It provides valuable information that can be helpful to researchers conducting similar area by presenting the wind tunnel configurations, operation process, and flow characteristics in detail. It is recommended to be published in this journal as detailed results and logical analysis are presented for a better understanding of the manuscript, but the following minor corrections are required.
- Figure 2 corresponds to an overveiw of the facility, similar information is presented in the Figure 1. Figure 2 would be good to present the main components of the facility in the form of an internal cross-sectional view so that the operation can be understood more easily.
- It would be good to present the installation location of the pitot rake and thermocouples in Figure 3.
- Please describe in more detail the on/off of the back valve presented in the results of Figure 5-7.
- It would be better if the flow characteristics or structure of Figure 10 were explained in more detail.
- In regard of the numerical techniques, what is a virtual piston boundary? In addition, the validation is necessary for the computational results.
- Throughout the manuscript, a space in front of the unit is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is well written and acceptable with some minor comments:
1- Figures from numerical have data but do not have units of the parameter, please add units.
2- The literature survey should be improved by noting the following relevant papers using LES for flow simulations:
Zahiri, A.P, Roohi, E., Further Assessment of Anisotropic Minimum-Dissipation (AMD) Subgrid-Scale Model: Gently Curved Backward Facing Step Flow, International Journal of Modern Physics C, Vol. 32 (05), 2150068 (2021).
Zahiri, A.P., Roohi, E., Evaluation of the Anisotropic Minimum-Dissipation (AMD) Subgrid-Scale Model in Treating Non-Cavitating and Cavitating Flows, Vol. 180(C), pp. 190-205, 2019, Computers & Fluids
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is acceptable now.
