[Grammar] related to

[ali_dd]

Hi,


I am answering the comments of reviewer of our paper. The following sentences are a parts of this answer.

Are the following sentences correct grammatically? Is it possible that these sentences are wrote better?


*Regarding the mentioned paper, 3 D computational results related to Wells turbine have massive separation that it(e.g massive separation) causes RANS simulation fails to predict massively separated turbulent flow while 2 D computational results related to Wells turbine have not massive separation with respect to 3 D computational results. Therefore, it causes simulation doesn't fails to predict flow and it covers wide range of angles of attack in the mentioned paper[22].

Thanks.

Best.

Ali

 

[Tarheel]

Hi,


I am answering the comments of a reviewer of our paper. The following sentences are [STRIKE]a[/STRIKE] parts of this answer.

Are the following sentences correct grammatically? Is it possible that these sentences could be written better?


*Regarding the mentioned paper, 3 D computational results related to Wells turbine have massive separation that it(e.g massive separation) causes RANS simulation fails to predict massively separated turbulent flow while 2 D computational results related to Wells turbine have not massive separation with respect to 3 D computational results. Therefore, it causes simulation doesn't fails to predict flow and it covers a wide range of angles of attack in the mentioned paper[22].

Thanks.

Best.

Ali

It is easier to make suggestions/corrections if you understand what you are reading. However, I have made some suggestions (in red). "Therefore, it causes simulation doesn't fails to predict flow" doesn't seem grammatical to me.