Next Article in Journal
High-Speed Imaging of Water Hammer Cavitation in Oil–Hydraulic Pipe Flow
Next Article in Special Issue
Validation and Enhancement of a Supermesh Strategy for the CFD Simulation of Four-Stroke Internal Combustion Engines
Previous Article in Journal
Fluid Flow and Structural Numerical Analysis of a Cerebral Aneurysm Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
A CFD Comparative Study of Bubbling Fluidized Bed Behavior with Thermal Effects Using the Open-Source Platforms MFiX and OpenFOAM
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fluids
Volume 7
Issue 3
10.3390/fluids7030101
Review Report
fluids-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Large-Eddy Simulation of a Classical Hydraulic Jump: Influence of Modelling Parameters on the Predictive Accuracy

Fluids 2022, 7(3), 101; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/fluids7030101
by Timofey Mukha 1,2,*, Silje Kreken Almeland 3 and Rickard E. Bensow 1
Reviewer 1:
Yixuan Feng
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Fluids 2022, 7(3), 101; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/fluids7030101
Submission received: 31 January 2022 / Revised: 20 February 2022 / Accepted: 25 February 2022 / Published: 7 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Numerical Methods for Computational Fluid Dynamics With Open-Source Software)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

  • It is not ideal to include abbreviation in the title. Using ‘Large-Eddy Simulation’ instead of ‘LES’ is recommended.
  • What is the value of δN from line 104 used in simulation?
  • On line 134, it mentions that the selection of model constants is difficult. It would be good to clarify how Ca = 1 is selected.
  • The discussion in section 2.5 is valuable. It would be good to provide more quantitative analysis. For example, in line 219, how much the increase of density is needed in simulation?
  • It would be good to provide results on mesh sensitivity analysis. What is the computational time?
  • The validation of model is mainly based on comparing with DNS of reference. Although explained in line 329-337, the disagreement between LES and DNS makes it doubtful about the accuracy of the model. The authors may conduct their own simulation by DNS instead of from reference to make the conditions the same. Additionally, any experimental measurement is also extremely helpful for comparison purpose.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very interesting study. I enjoyed reading that.  I would recommend accepting this paper after a revision addressing the following issues.

-Abstract’s “topic sentence”:

“Results from large-eddy simulations of a classical hydraulic jump at inlet Froude number 2 are reported.”

--what does inlet mean? In world of Hydraulics, “inlet” is used for a canal, culvert, pump intake. I double checked several major reference books of Open Channel Flow and Water Resources Engineering (WRE) and did not see anything like “inlet Froud number”. Likewise, in #32: physical parameter of the CHJ is the inlet Froude number. As much as I know after teaching these many years, inlet Fr is not common in hydraulics/WRE community.

Also, whenever engineers see Fr or Reynolds number, they immediately need to know “Froud number” based on what? Fr can be based on gate opening (FrG), hydraulic depth,…

Maybe go with “initial Froud number”, F1= Fr of approach flow.

#5: “good agreement”: avoid qualitative description, add percentage.

#14: The way that this sentence is read is not fully accurate. While the first part is a general, robust definition of hydraulic jump (HJ), the “shallow canal” is not; HJ can happen in many places, e.g., downstream of spillway, middle of culverts, etc.  The “shallow canal” is not always the case.

#35: The most stable CHJs occur when Fr is [4, 9].

Here the authors need to briefly notes the five classification of jumps and notes this work is under 1.7 < F1<2.5 “Weak Jump”

--Also I suggest adding this:  “For flow at approach Fr of 2.0, HJ corresponds to a relatively thick jet at low velocity entering the jump and the relative energy loss is only about 7% (open channel flow by Jain 2001).”

--Length of the jump needs be mentioned somewhere in the paper, this is the first think authors want to check vs Lx.

--It seems the authors are not aware of these more recent publications:

  • Yu, Xiangming Hendrickson, Kelli Campbell, Bryce K. and Yue, Dick K. P. 2019. Numerical investigation of shear-flow free-surface turbulence and air entrainment at large Froude and Weber numbers. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 880, Issue. , p. 209.
  • Jesudhas, Vimaldoss Balachandar, Ram Wang, Hang and Murzyn, Frederic 2020. Modelling hydraulic jumps: IDDES versus experiments. Environmental Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 20, Issue. 2, p. 393.
  • Retsinis, Eugene and Papanicolaou, Panayiotis 2020. Numerical and Experimental Study of Classical Hydraulic Jump. Water, Vol. 12, Issue. 6, p. 1766.

--Add water depth d2 into table 1 and Fig. 2.

--The LES part has enough good info. I appreciate the authors including details of numerical schemes and boundary conditions, which is particularly useful for modelers using the same numerical tool. I also believe the grid sensitivity analysis is begging for its own sub-section.

--In general, rectangular channels are rarely seen in practice. I suggest authors use these methods developed here to a hydraulic jump (HJ) in trapezoidal channel. That would be even more interesting.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments are addressed properly.

Back to TopTop