Optimizing Airfoil Aerodynamic Characteristics by Using Proposed CSA-KJ Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please find my comments in the document attached below.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presents an automatic geometric optimization campaign of the NACA4412 profile using a method based on the cuckoo search algorithm and a subsequent validation of the aerodynamic efficiency improvement of the optimized profile with respect to the baseline profile using Computational Fluid Dynamics based simulations.
Although the first part is well described and justified, a complete discussion regarding the proposed optimization method is missing from the set of available methods. Why should we use this method instead of the vast set of aerodynamic optimization methods available in the literature? This is not clear.
More importantly, since the verification of the increase in profile performance is verified by CFD simulation, the computational model should be explained in a separate whole section.
Given the design point is low Reynolds number, the turbulence model used seems not to be appropriate, there could be low Reynolds number effects associated with the adverse pressure gradient in the extrados that could significantly affect the pressure distribution and hence drag and lift coefficients. Given this uncertainty, it is highly recommended to sensitize the results with low Reynolds number models such as v2f, k-kl-w or kw-sst, including Cf (skin friction coefficient) and Cp (pressure coefficient) as comparison variables.
The y+ distributions over the profile should be included in the results to demonstrate the computational grid was built with the proper near the wall resolution and the proper near wall treatment was selected.
Based on these observations, it is not recommended to accept the manuscript for publication without first addressing the points described above.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In this work, authors have applied a combination of the cuckoo search optimization algorihtm and the Kutta-Joukowsky method to optimize the aerodynamics of a NACA 4412 airfoil. The airfoil profile is described by a 4th order polynomial.
The work has some interesting results but lacks a clear explanation of the procedure applied to obtain the velocity field, among many other issues.
My recommendation is accept this paper after major corrections.
Below are some concerns that arose after reading the manuscript:
- In section 3, it is not clear how the optimization procedure works. How the aerodynamics of airfoil was computed? With CFD model?
- Does the Polynomial profile shown in figure 2 have a sharp leading edge? The NACA profile is smooth in this point. Do the simulations have been done with this?
- The results shown in figure 5 are not meaningful above 90m/s since the Mach number is above 0.3 and the flow is cannot be considered incompressible. I suggest limit this data to 60m/s or given an explanation why authors have done simulation with these high velocities without this physical consideration.
- Author should given some explanation on why there is some pressure difference oscilations in naca results of figure 7.
- Why no validation with experimental data was presented?
- Insert some information about the coefficients of CSA-KJ4412 that will allow the reader to plot the data show in figure 2.
- After optimization, what are the values of p1,p2,p3 and p4?
- What are the dimensions units of figure 2?
- It is not clear what variables are vectors and what are constants. For example The symbol "x" in equations 1,5,6, 7 and 8. This symbol is usually used to cross product. In eq 8 it should be dot ".". Please differentiate scalars, vectors and matrixes and use math symbols adequately.
- Remove CSA-KJ, since it is not a keyword. CSA and KJ are already defined.
- Remove the word "evidently" and "obviusly" in lines 22,23,236, 240
- The importance of each one of reference 2-4 to present work should be given.
- The importance of reference 6 to present work should be given.
- In lines 49-52, the references of GSA and PSOA are are given multiple times:
(GA) [11–13] (PSOA) [14–16] GA [16,17] and PSOA [18] These references are broad and should be given only one time.
- Remove the parantheses in equation 3.
- Use a begin box statement in Figure 1, like the one used to show the end of the procedure.
- Remove the commas between number and dimensions at line 152
- What are the meaning of Grid numbers in table 1? How many Finite volumes are used in each mesh?
L. 172: fix Reynolds number.
There are many language mistakes along the paper. Below are some of then:
-in line 164, change generation to generated. Also in caption of Figure 3
-Remove curver in caption of Figure 4
-Line 179, remove figures.
-L. 170: "Verify the availability" is not correct in this context.
-L. 181: Change to "angle of attack".
-L. 244: Aeroengine is not an english word.
I suggest a careful grammar and language check.
- references 12 and 13 are duplicated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I thank the authors for incorporating my suggestions and inputs in the revised manuscript. I believe that their efforts in this regards are commendable. I now recommend the publication of this manuscript in Applied Sciences.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
No additional comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Congratulations for your work.
I only suggest change the caption of figure 3 (b) to " Airfoil vicinity"
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
