Effect of Considering Wave Angles on the Motion Response of Oversized Floating Bodies in Offshore Airports under Irregular Wind and Wave Loads
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, the authors study by means of numerical modelling the response of an oversized floating body for floating offshore airports. The proposed work fits within the aim of the journal and constitutes a topic of interest. However, there are some important flaws that makes this work not suitable for publication, on its current form. Hence, I recommend to reject the manuscript. Following the authors can find some of the reasons for this decision:
1. The manuscript must be structured as: (i) introduction, (ii) materials and methods, (iii) results, (iv) discussion and (v) conclusions.
2. I do believe that the term “Self-storage sea state” is wrong translation and I do suggest to double check this.
3. Final paragraph of section 1. It should be mentioned that the significant wave height and the peak period are the reference parameters, instead of just including the symbols on the last sentence.
4. It should be clearly justified why K-omega was selected as turbulence model, as in this case the wall effect is expected to have a significant influence on the lift forces of the platform, and therefore cannot be neglected. This would suggest using SST turbulence model instead.
5. When describing the main parameters of the floating body, the Centre of Gravity and mass of the platform are missing. Being these crucial parameters to define the dynamic response of the body.
6. It is not clear how the interface between the water grid and the floating body are connected. Has the boundary layer been considered in the numerical domain?
7. Table 3. The vertical displacement and colour bar scales are missing.
8. Figures 6 and 7. The aspect ratio of the figures is not appropriate and therefore the dimensions seem not correct.
9. Figures 6, 7, 11 and 12. The maximum values for the colour bars are different on each one of the subplots. This does not allow to easily compare the results. I do suggest fixing a value for all identical figures.
9. Figure 10 does not allow an easy interpretation of the results. It would be easier to read a 2D graph overlapping the different curves.
9. Figure 12. I do guest that the colour bar refers to the Von Misses stress, but part of the title is missing.
9. Figure 14. Units are missing on the vertical axes.
9. The critical discussion of the results comparing them with other similar previous works.
TThe quality of the English and the fluency of the text is in overall good, and I do not have further comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript describes an interesting topic.
However, major revisions are needed before publication.
It is not clear whether the floating body is in an existing offshore airport, if so a description of it should be added.
In paragraph 1.1, existing long-term wave statistics in the South China Sea have been used (ref. 18 and 19). However, both references are from 1998, it would be useful to use more recent data.
It is not specified how the numerical simulation was carried out. More information should be added on the used model and on which wave data were used (whether those of paragraph 1.1 or those of paragraph 1.2 or both).
The methodology is unclear, it should be better schematized by also adding a flow chart.
A comparison with other similar studies should be added in the discussions.
Finally, in the text there are numerous typos (for example bold, capital letters, spaces, punctuation marks etc.) and please check if the paragraph numbering corresponds to the template.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to congratulate to the authors, as the manuscript in its revised form has increased considerably its quality. Hence, I recommend the publication of the present manuscript, once the following minor points have been considered:
1. Please revise all equations as there are several errors on them, such as, spaces missing on some equal signs, equation numbers displayed on different lines, etc.
· 2. Table 2 column widths should be rearranged, as it cannot be read properly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been extensively revised according to the reviewers suggestions and the responses to the reviewers are also satisfactory. Therefore, it is possible to accept the manuscript in its present form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
