Computational Fluid Dynamics Investigation of Hydrodynamic Forces and Moments Acting on Stern Rudder Plane Configurations of a Submarine
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is devoted to the prediction of the hydrodynamic characteristics of various submarine rudder configurations using the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes method in Ansys Fluent Solver.
The paper analyzes three types of rudder configurations. The hydrodynamic forces and moments acting on the steering wheel are numerically predicted.
The best, from the point of view of maneuverability, characteristic of the layout of the stern plane rudders has been analyzed.
Contributions should be explicitly written in the paragraph before the last paragraph of the Introduction section. The emphasis should be on the contributions of this work, by clearly enumerating the specific contributions.
It is not clear from the paper what is new from a scientific point of view. Or is this a fundamentally new algorithm or an improvement? Or is a fundamentally new submarine design being considered?
In my opinion, it is necessary to indicate in more detail what has been added to the subject area in comparison with other published works.
A more explicit comparison of the proposed method with other existing methods is necessary in terms of calculation speed and accuracy.
In this regard, it is advisable to indicate a larger number of references in which alternative methods for solving the problem were described, which would make it possible to more clearly identify the advantages and disadvantages.
Table 1 is not signed. Dimensions must be specified. The numbers in Fig. 9-11 are not clear and difficult to read.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
We would like to express our thankfulness for your comments!
We have revised the paper and we would like to send the Responses in the attached file.
Yours faithfully,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors Following questions need to be improved. 1. Targeting on characteristics of hydrodynamic forces and moments of the three different rudder-plane configurations, how to choose the rudder-plane configuration of a submarine in practice？ 2. What are the hydrodynamic force and moment characteristics of the three kinds of rudder-plane configurations at large deflection angles of rudders and stabilizers? 3. Do the trends in hydrodynamic forces and moments of the three rudder-plane configurations change at different speeds? 4. Do the hydrodynamic forces and moments of the three rudder-plane configurations under non-hydrostatic conditions still follow the same trend as under hydrostatic conditions? 5. What improvements can be made to bring the results obtained by CFD-based methods closer to the experimental results? 6. How do the hydrodynamic forces and moments of different rudder-plane configurations affect the manoeuvrability of submarines? Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe present paper analyses the hydrodynamic characteristics of different rudder plane configurations behind a submarine in deep water through Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes method-based Computational Fluid Dynamics simulations in Ansys Fluent Solver. The hydrodynamic coefficients via hydrodynamic force and moment acting on the Cross-plane, X-plane, and Y-plane rudder configurations are analyzed. Further, the present results and compared with experimental data sets, and seems that they have a good level of agreement. The work presented here meets the recent trend of research and is interesting to the researchers working in the same field of research. However, the present version needs an improvement before considering for publication. Therefore, this reviewer writes some useful comments that must be incorporated by the authors in the manuscript for wider readability.
1. The last paragraph of the Introduction should be reorganized by discussing the flow chart of the work presented in the manuscript.
2. In Eqs. (1-6), the symbols are used that should be explained in the texts. Please check the same throughout the paper.
3. Section 3.2: There are missing descriptions of the i) computational domain, ii) computational mesh, and iii) computational cost that must be addressed.
4. Figure 6, percentage differences of the comparison results should be discussed.
5. Conclusion: The limitations and the future scope of the research must be highlighted.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language is needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed the authors' responses to the comments and the updated version of the paper.
I note that the authors gave detailed answers. All comments have been eliminated. I believe that in this format the article will be interesting and understandable to readers and can be published.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has been revised as required.
