Numerical Analysis of the Impact Parameters on the Dynamic Response of a Submerged Floating Tunnel under Coupling Waves and Flows
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors presented a numerical study on the Impact Parameters on Dynamic Response of a Submerged Floating Tunnel under Coupling Waves and Flows. The paper is generally well prepared and can be accepted for publication after addressing the following points:
The main quantitative results are to be mentioned in the abstract.
The novelty of the paper is to be clearly stated.
The used turbulence model is to be justified.
The equations related to turbulence are to be presented.
What is the considered ranger for Reynold number?
The boundary conditions are to be expressed mathematically.
What is the used CFD software?
What is the used time step?
presented.
The 3D flow structure (streamlines) is to be presented for a better understanding of the flow structure.
The scientific soundness of the paper is to be improved by adding physical interprettations.
The paper is to be checked for misprints and grammatical mistakes.
The paper is to be checked for misprints and grammatical mistakes.
Author Response
please see "response to reviewer 1"
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Numerical Analysis of the Impact Parameters on Dynamic Response of a Submerged Floating Tunnel under Coupling Waves and Flows. The text of the manuscript raises some questions.
Major points:
1. The abstract is written in very general terms, which makes it difficult for the reader to assess the content of the work. Authors should add specifics about the manuscript, such as the size of the object being studied and the parameters of the simulated waves.
2. Section 2. There is no gravity in equations (1)-(2), although it plays an important role in this problem. Also, the equations do not contain parameters that are responsible for interfacial interaction.
3. The text in figure 1 is very small and difficult to read without zooming in.
4. The model uses a symmetry boundary condition. How acceptable is this? There is a comparison with experiment. We need a picture of the experimental SFT disposition for comparison with the model.
5. SFT moves in space over time. How were the moving rigid bodies modeled?
6. What model of cable? How is the stress in the cable and at the cable connection to the SFT modeled?
7. Figure 2. The text states that the CFD results are in good agreement with the experiment. There is an obvious match in frequency, but there is a 50% discrepancy in amplitude. How do the authors quantify agreement with experiments?
8. Table 4. Why so many columns if only one parameter changes Hi
9. Multi-parameter calculations were carried out with a large number of numerical values. However, the conclusion provides only a qualitative description of the influence of parameters on the process under study. It would be interesting to provide quantitative estimates, for example, the acceptable limits of some parameters or their optimal values.
The manuscript may be revisited after major revision.
Author Response
Please see attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper introduced an interesting study on the dynamic response of a submerged floating tunnel under both waves and flows with their coupled terms considered. Some issues need to be addressed before it can be allowed for publication.
-
A more detailed description of the submerged floating tunnel should be provided, including a figure for better illustration.
-
The manuscript requires significant improvement and proofreading, some issues like “Submerged floating tunnel (SFT)” -> “Submerged Floating Tunnel (SFT)” should be fixed.
-
The language can be improved.
-
Instead of directly citing the experimental results, more details of the experimental set-up should be added.
-
Since the author mentioned the accuracy of the simulation over the experimental results is better with a finer mesh, the reviewer would suggest adding a figure to show the convergence of the results over the meshing size.
-
From line 215-217, the conclusion can not be drawn, more data points are necessary.
-
Figure 5(d) has a line missing.
-
Irregular waves should be considered.
-
The line type for Figure 4.6,7,8 should be revised for better readability of the paper-printed version.
Author Response
Please see attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Minor revision is suggested. Please see the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Moderate editing of English language is required.
Author Response
Please see attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Many points have been corrected by the authors of the manuscript. The manuscript may be accepted in present form.
Author Response
Thanks for your review
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is acceptable in current form yet the literature review can still be extended and improved.
Author Response
Thanks for your review
