A Dynamic Large-Scale Driving-Force to Control the Targeted Wind Speed in Large Eddy Simulations above Ocean Waves
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Having read this paper, I believe it is suitable for publication. However, there is one question I would like to see an answer to:
Have the authors done any study to determine whether the size of the computational domain influences the results? Wave-pattern studies in fluid dynamics can run into trouble when the wavelengths approach the size of the computational box. When this happen, boundary conditions can start to artificially influence the behaviour of the fluids. has this been considered and, if so, what steps have been taken to avoid this situation.
The focus of this paper is to model the interaction between a body of water and the atmosphere above it. In particular, the extent to which wave-action at the surface of the water influences wind patterns and how this interaction should be modeled.
The paper is well-written. I would not exactly call it easy to read, since it is highly technical. However, the authors explain their method thoroughly, to the point where a reader could replicate the entire process if they want to. They also give a thorough analysis of their results, though, arguably, the method is the most important part of the paper.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your implication in the peer-review process.
Please find our response letter here attached.
Best regards,
Liad and co-authors.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Kindly include recent literatures and novelty.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your implication in the peer-review process.
Please find our response letter here attached.
Best regards,
Liad and co-authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This study developed a method to establish an imposed time-varying longitudinal pressure gradient to avoid numerical deficits inherent in standard LES if a constant pressure gradient is employed instead. There are a few concerns here:
major concerns:
1) the description of the gradient modeler is not presented in a clear way, an improvement is expected.
1a) equation 10, what is a delta and what is the reasoning behind equations 10 and 11?
1b) why equation 12 is the constraint for P_x?
1c) In the sentences above equation 14, why the response is limited to large periods, and why stability can be guaranteed by equation 14 and any criteria for the numbers like 1000?
2) For some of the results, only results are described but without a detailed explanation of the physical/numerical mechanism.
2a) in figure 8, why friction velocity of the case 02 deviate the most while eventually, all the other cases collapse? form drag of case 05 is totally different from others?
2b) more explanations are highly recommended for the descriptions of the rest figures.
minor concerns:
1) line 118, why the fifth order Stokes solution is prescribed
2) line 139, 2/3 represents what effects
3) line 158, explicit expression of equations 1, 2, and 3 for terrain-following version are expected, please refer to the 'Yang, D. & Shen, L. (2011), “Simulation of viscous flows with undulatory boundaries: Part I. Basic solver,” Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 230, pp.5488–5509. ' and their equations 6-9.
4) line 264, a great point here, just wondering how the momentum transfer is balanced dynamically, could you please explain this in a mathematical or physical way?
5) before you show figure 3, any 2D snapshot added so that visualization is better for the readers to understand
6) line 287, why F_p and F_t and their ratio are plotted here, one sentence to explain the purpose
7) line 396, what is the resolved WA, it looks like you do not resolve the wave but prescribed instead.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your implication in the peer-review process.
Please find our response letter here attached.
Best regards,
Liad and co-authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
