The Effect of Reynolds Numbers on Flow-Induced Vibrations: A Numerical Study of a Cylinder on Elastic Supports
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study uses numerical simulations to examine how Reynolds numbers affect flow-induced vibrations (FIV) in smooth and Passive Turbulence Control (PTC) cylinders. By analyzing vibration responses, lift coefficients, and wake structures across Reynolds numbers from 8,000 to 110,000, the research aims to clarify how these factors influence flow and vibration characteristics. The results are intended to aid in optimizing structural design and vibration control in high Reynolds number conditions.
The study is mainly theoretical. The Authors validate their model with the published experimental results.
In the literature, there are some studies (very related to the current study and not given in the references), but the Authors do not give explanation on how their study is different from the studies already published. It is necessary to explain the differences and the original contribution of the study.
The objective of the paper is not well stated. It is necessary to clearly state the objectives of the study.
The application field of the study should be defined better.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English writing of the paper should be improved.
Author Response
We have provided the PDF for the reviewers to review.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors(1) In the title, replace “3D cylinder” with “cylinder”. Here, 3D is redundant.
(2) This is simulation work. However, there are several experimental works done on turbulence around suspended cylinder. These are needed to be addressed. At present the literature review section is weak.
(3) Please address on what basis spring stiffness values of 𝐾 = 30, 60, 120, and 240 N/m were considered for this study.
(4) In Fig. 2a, what do you mean by global view?
(5) As shown in Figure 2a-b, please explain the differences between “smooth cylinder close-up view” and “global view”.
(6) “simulation parameters were aligned with the setups of Williamson et al. and Han et al. [24,25].” – which parameters? Why were these two literatures selected among many available literaures?
(7) What do you mean by Lissajous figures?
(8) In Figure 4, all the abscissas and ordinates were not defined.
(9) The physical significance of Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 need to be explained in detail.
(10) “The VIV response of the smooth cylinder across different Reynolds number ranges is depicted in Figure 5” – There are some literature works where experimental work was carried out for the VIV response with the selected experimental ranges. Those outcomes are needed to be compared with the present study.
(11) In Fig. 6, on what basis a semi-logarithmic trend line equation was shown? What is the physical significance of this equation?
(12) According to Fig. 8, why are the nature of K120 and K140 trendlines different than the K30 and K60 trendlines?
(13) In Fig. 9, what is the need the show the lift contours at those locations which are away from the cylinder?
(14) What is the need to show wake structures at the downstream of the cylinder?
(15) How do the wake structures influence VIV? Technical justification missing.
(16) Simulation results were not validated with the experimental results collecting from literatures.
(17) In conclusion, it was written: “The study focuses on changes in key parameters such as vibration response, lift coefficient, and wake structure” ----- How wake structure can be a key parameter?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
We have provided the PDF for the reviewers to review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We have provided the PDF for the reviewers to review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Authors completed the necessary revisions.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate your approval of our revised manuscript, and we are very grateful that you took the time out of your busy schedule to review it.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe file containing the replies to my comments was not uploaded. I checked the revised one. Most of my comments are yet to be addressed in the revised MS.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
We sincerely apologize for the increased workload caused by our oversight. Please allow us to express our gratitude once again for taking the time to review this revised manuscript amidst your busy schedules.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
