You are on page 1of 2

Corrections - James Gascoine.

Table of contents: make sure the page numbers are correctly aligned
Nomenclature: make sure all units are present
List of tables (p3): strange character present for Table 3
Pages 4 & 5. Too much space wasted, you can put everything on one page.
Summary (p5): far too short! In addition, this should be a summary of you
work, not a recommendation for future work. This needs to be improved.
Section 6, p6: The reference to the Appendix 1. When looking at the
picture in the Appendix, we cannot see anything. You should have scanned
this rather than take a picture with your camera! Have you asked Dr Lao
that you could include this in your thesis?
You could have extracted the figure from Fluent and added the dimensions
on this.
There are typos in the text, for instance, p6: all cases are show, .. Check
the whole text!
You talk about Turbulent intensity OK, but what is it? A few sentences are
required to explain this.
Section 6.3. Refs for Fluent and Icem CFD are missing. It is Icem CFD, not
Icem!
How many cells in your mesh?
Describe the Fluent settings. Which turbulence model and why? Which
settings and why?
Section 7.1
Figure 2 is terrible! You need to improve this and reference where it is
coming from.
Section 7.1.5.
Figure 3 is too small and not centred.
Table 2: use international units! This table should also be centred
Fig 4 should be centred
Page 12. Ref for Pan & Hanratty is missing
Section 7.2.2. Last reference should be after the text!
You need to use the same style for all equations!
Table 3: strange character after lambda
Page 24: Your literature review is missing a Conclusion section. How was
your literature review useful for your study? How did this help you to
generate/explain the results? What are you going to use in your result
section?
Section 8.
Page 25: what is Case 1?
What is CDF?
What is the picture you are showing? You are showing this only result and
we dont even know what it is. What are the blue and red colors?
End of Page 25: comment about OLGA: this software would allow for a
more realistic scenario under better conditions, for liquid carry over
including allowing for flashing in the separator. You are WRONG! OLGA is
a 1D code, will never be able to predict this accurately. The fact that you
have not managed to do it does not mean that it cannot be done with a 3D
CFD code. Actually, it can be done, people have done flow separation
studies with CFD, although you have not included anything about this in
your report.

You should include and explain what other people have done for flow
separation and what you should have done if you had had more time/more
knowledge about CFD
You have not discussed either that you have been using a 2D model while
in reality, this is a 3D case
This Discussion section needs improvement
References: typos and references not properly written. There is a guide
from the University which explains how to write proper references
Page 29: Appendices.. Blank page??