You are on page 1of 4

Reviewer Comments

Reviewer 1:

1) Technical Summary: What are the authors trying to do? What are the objectives, goals and outcomes?

Check PDF for complete review. This box filling is the only way to get the web tool to
accept the submission. I also had to duplicate my review in both the additional author
comments and the comments to organizers section. My organizer comments are to
remove the minimum word requirement on the webtool. This is the only way I can get
the tool to accept my submission.
2) Significance & Relevance: How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice?

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, quo ut justo saepe, atqui contentiones no mel. Tractatos
ocurreret te qui. Sed atqui recteque suscipiantur ad, appetere sententiae disputando
cum cu, ut odio labores assentior vis. Meliore imperdiet eloquentiam ad cum. Te dictas
perfecto referrentur sea, ei eripuit referrentur cum. No eos facer minim.
3) Originality: What is new in the authors approach and why do they think it will be successful?

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, quo ut justo saepe, atqui contentiones no mel. Tractatos
ocurreret te qui. Sed atqui recteque suscipiantur ad, appetere sententiae disputando
cum cu, ut odio labores assentior vis. Meliore imperdiet eloquentiam ad cum. Te dictas
perfecto referrentur sea, ei eripuit referrentur cum. No eos facer minim.
4) Impact & Permanence: What is the impact of the work and what difference will it make?

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, quo ut justo saepe, atqui contentiones no mel. Tractatos
ocurreret te qui. Sed atqui recteque suscipiantur ad, appetere sententiae disputando
cum cu, ut odio labores assentior vis. Meliore imperdiet eloquentiam ad cum. Te dictas
perfecto referrentur sea, ei eripuit referrentur cum. No eos facer minim.
5) Quality & Credibility: How are the methods, results, and the outcomes assessed?

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, quo ut justo saepe, atqui contentiones no mel. Tractatos
ocurreret te qui. Sed atqui recteque suscipiantur ad, appetere sententiae disputando
cum cu, ut odio labores assentior vis. Meliore imperdiet eloquentiam ad cum. Te dictas
perfecto referrentur sea, ei eripuit referrentur cum. No eos facer minim.
see ASME
guidelines:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, quo ut justo saepe, atqui contentiones no mel. Tractatos
ocurreret te qui. Sed atqui recteque suscipiantur ad, appetere sententiae disputando
cum cu, ut odio labores assentior vis. Meliore imperdiet eloquentiam ad cum. Te dictas
perfecto referrentur sea, ei eripuit referrentur cum. No eos facer minim.
6) Comments for author about style / formatting & suggestions to improve the paper,

7) Recommendation for / against Conference Publication, state why or why not this paper should be
presented at the conference:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, quo ut justo saepe, atqui contentiones no mel. Tractatos
ocurreret te qui. Sed atqui recteque suscipiantur ad, appetere sententiae disputando
cum cu, ut odio labores assentior vis. Meliore imperdiet eloquentiam ad cum. Te dictas
perfecto referrentur sea, ei eripuit referrentur cum. No eos facer minim.
8) Recommendation for / against Journal Publication, state why or why not this paper should be
recommended for the journal:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, quo ut justo saepe, atqui contentiones no mel. Tractatos
ocurreret te qui. Sed atqui recteque suscipiantur ad, appetere sententiae disputando
cum cu, ut odio labores assentior vis. Meliore imperdiet eloquentiam ad cum. Te dictas
perfecto referrentur sea, ei eripuit referrentur cum. No eos facer minim.
View Comments 245KB
Reviewer 2:
1) Technical Summary: What are the authors trying to do? What are the objectives, goals and outcomes?

The authors are trying to study the fractality of combustion noise for an unconfined open
turbulent flame using multi-fractal analysis. The presented study obtains valuable finding
that combustion noise is described as monofractal structure.
2) Significance & Relevance: How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice?

Nonlinear time series analysis has attracted considerable attention for nearly a decade,
and enables us to encompass our understanding of complex combustion dynamics. The
present work is of significance in the field of combustion science and engineering.
3) Originality: What is new in the authors approach and why do they think it will be successful?

Nonlinear time series analysis they used is classical, but important in nonlinear science
community. The finding obtained in this paper has originality for the oral presentation.
4) Impact & Permanence: What is the impact of the work and what difference will it make?

The presented study obtains valuable finding that combustion noise is described as
monofractal structure. Previous studies on combustion noise using multifractal analysis
dealt with confined system.
5) Quality & Credibility: How are the methods, results, and the outcomes assessed?

The manuscript is well written, quite clear with adequate references. The method they
used is suitable for discussing the multi fractabiity of combustion dynamics.
see ASME
guidelines:
The authors present the systematic experimental study on the fractality of combustion
noise for an unconfined open turbulent flame using nonlinear time series analysis. The
presented study obtains valuable findings on characterization of combustion noise, and
will create interest among the attendees in the ASME Turbo Expo. This referee would like
to recommend the manuscript by Saurabh et al. for oral presentation. Comments: (1)
The paper (Unni and R. I. Sujith, J. Fluid Mech. vol. 784, pp. 30-50, 2015.) may be
helpful for discussing the multifractality in your manuscript although the confined
combustor is used. (2) Is there a reason that you do not use the general singularity
spectrum f(alpha) in your manuscript? Here, alpha is the singularity strength. Is it not
necessary to use the embedding theorem for multifractal analysis (for example, V. R.
Unni and R. I. Sujith, J. Fluid Mech. vol. 784, pp. 30-50, 2015; H. Gotoda et al, Chaos,
vol. 22, 043128, 2012.)?
6) Comments for author about style / formatting & suggestions to improve the paper,

7) Recommendation for / against Conference Publication, state why or why not this paper should be
presented at the conference:

On the basis of the above evaluation, I would like to recommend the manuscript by
Saurabh et al. for oral presentation in the ASME Turbo Expo.

8) Recommendation for / against Journal Publication, state why or why not this paper should be
recommended for the journal:

At this stage, I cannot determine the recommendation of the Journal publication 'as it
is'... I would like to see the final version of the manuscript.
Reviewer 3:
1) Technical Summary: What are the authors trying to do? What are the objectives, goals and outcomes?

The paper presents results from fractal analysis of a unconfined, weakly turbulent,
premixed flames. Non-reactive flows at three levels of Re-# have been compared to
reactive flows with different equivalence ratio (from 0 to 1.1). The method of fractal
analysis is briefly summarized; assessment is performed by fluctuation function vs.
fractal window size and finally related to value of Hurst exponent. The investigated
flames beyond a certain level of frequency do not differentiate from the cold flow noise.
2) Significance & Relevance: How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice?

The paper presents a method on a fractal method how to analyse combustion noise or

flow structures. The application of fractional analysis on combustion flows is not new.
The application of the method is performed investigating unconfined atmospheric flames.
The relevance for typical gas turbine combustion systems, with combustion systems
noise emissions often dominated by structured combustion dynamics is not really clear
to the reviewer.
3) Originality: What is new in the authors approach and why do they think it will be successful?

The method of fractal analysis to combustion flows and esp. turbulent flows is not new;
typical approach for fractal analysis is used. The comparison of the experimental results
to artificial / synthetic noise, which characteristics is approximately matching the
experimentally found spectra, confirming that the found combustion noise can be
interpreted as being mono-fractal.
4) Impact & Permanence: What is the impact of the work and what difference will it make?

The selected cases are not representative for gas turbine combustion systems esp. due
to the unconfined setup of the tests. This is a typical experimental / generic setup to
investigate simple flames. No data are presented making the paper useful for
validation. The method presented is not novel. The application of the fractal method to
this setup has limited relevance.
5) Quality & Credibility: How are the methods, results, and the outcomes assessed?

The paper summarizes the method used in an understandable way. However, nonexperts in the fractal theory / mathematics would really have to dig in the references /
literature to be able to follow more easily to the method. Interpretation of the found
fluctuation functions vs. frame size and Hurst exponent is falling short.
see ASME
guidelines:
Fig. 3 between 100 and 400Hz shows clearly visible peaks in the spectrum, which in the
cold flow do not follow an obvious Str-# scaling. Can this be explained? - Add formulas
to separate sections, dont hide them in the text paragraphs - Hurst exponent
interpretation a concrete interpretation should be given to the reader, how to interpret
Hurst exponents > 1. To my recollection Hurst exponents normally are smaller 1, and 1
means there is a strong auto-correlation in the structure. What is then H>1? - Fig.7 and
discussion. I guess it is clear that this trend has to be expected, because the f^(-2) law
has been basically taken from the experimental results (fig.3). - The abstract and the
conclusion sections have to be strengthened. In the reviewers opinion it is not really
clear what the paper wants to accomplish and what has been accomplished. What makes
this method superior compared to other methods? What is the take-away for a gas
turbine engineer ?
6) Comments for author about style / formatting & suggestions to improve the paper,

7) Recommendation for / against Conference Publication, state why or why not this paper should be
presented at the conference:

The paper deals with a method for assessment of turbulent flow structures. In principle
such methods are of interest for the gas turbine aero design community. The paper does
not really manage to show the reader, what are conclusions, he could draw from results
applying the method to experimental / numerical data compared to other methods. In
my opinion this is a large gap in the paper. I dont recommend to consider the paper for
publication. At least a major revision will be needed to add value for the reader.
8) Recommendation for / against Journal Publication, state why or why not this paper should be
recommended for the journal:

To the reviewers opinion the paper does not meet the quality levels in the categories
significance, originality or relevance for journal publication. The paper is not written in a
way showing that this is a must use method to assess unsteady flames, especially
considering the choice of q=-0.5, which suggests the focus of the paper should be nonwhite noise structures. For such structures, however, there are other established
methods available. Then a comparison to these would be needed. I cannot recommend

the paper for Journal publication.


Draft Recommendations/Comments
Comments

Dear Authors,
the reviewers have completed their assessment of your draft. All of them remark the
missing connection between you findings and an application in gas turbine combustion.
Please acknowledge their voluntary effort by seriously considering to adopt their inputs
wherever possible. Please indicate all changes in an accompanying rebuttal letter. If you
feel you can not follow the suggested revisions please make a statement to clarify why
you can't. Please note that your revised draft / rebuttal is due February 13, 2017.
Thanks for submitting your work to the conference, best regards, Christoph Hirsch