Dynamic Stall Characteristics of the Bionic Airfoil with Different Waviness Ratios

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper seems to be a direct extension of the study by  

R. Kant, A. Bhattacharyya, A bio-inspired twin-protuberance hydrofoil design,
Ocean Engineering, Volume 218, 2020, 108209, ISSN 0029-8018,

The presentation of results and conclusions are similar to their work

Without referring to their work, it seems to be an issue,

 

The authors must first clarify how their work adds new value to an existing similar work 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Language expression must be improved imperatively throughout the manuscript. Some sentences should be rewritten due to the lack of coherence and many confusing sentences in meaning.
2. The explanation of the geometric model is unclear. How about the consideration for taking the value of AR and R? Is there any comparison with other research? 
3. Need more descriptions about the computational domain and boundary conditions. The nomenclature of the geometric airfoil models used in the current study should be added in the revised manuscript.
4. Please clearly explain the flow condition. Is it similar to that with the experiment?
5. Did they use the finite element method or CFD to verify their findings? Since they did not mention it in the manuscript.
6. In Fig. 5, did the Authors use the different AOA? If so, please mention it in the geometric models. The validation itself is not convincing if we compared it with the experiment, a large gap appeared at stall angle (AOA > 15°). Please explain it. Also, please provide the uncertainty of your simulation.
7. It is very interesting to see the airfoil behavior of the AOA of 18° and 20°. I wonder how to verify the Cp value in Figure 14. b? Please clarify it.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments are in the attahment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Good work. The manuscript have been improved. Thank you for taking my advices. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept.