Next Article in Journal
Microplastics Dynamics in the Bathing Seawater Affected by the Ebb Tide in Zhanjiang Bay, China
Next Article in Special Issue
Large-Scale Simulation of a Shipping Speed Limitation Measure in the Western Mediterranean Sea: Effects on Underwater Noise
Previous Article in Journal
Factors Contributing to Fatality and Injury Outcomes of Maritime Accidents: A Comparative Study of Two Accident-Prone Areas
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Methodology for Shipping Noise Field Calibration and Excess Noise Estimation: The Azores Case Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JMSE
Volume 10
Issue 12
10.3390/jmse10121946
Review Report
jmse-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

On the Influence of Cavitation Volume Variations on Propeller Broadband Noise

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10(12), 1946; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10121946
by Leonie S. Föhring 1,2,*, Peter Møller Juhl 2 and Dietrich Wittekind 3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10(12), 1946; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10121946
Submission received: 9 November 2022 / Revised: 2 December 2022 / Accepted: 3 December 2022 / Published: 8 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Assessing the Pressure of Underwater Anthropogenic Noise from Impulsive and Continuous Sound Sources)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents the influence of cavitation volume on propeller noise. Some comments can be considered during the revision as follows:

1. It is not clear the novelty of the work as the authors mentioned several papers that almost have the same concept, in particular, ref 12; please clarify.

2. Does it has a relation with the percentage and distribution of wake field?

3. The introduction needs improvements.

4. The authors can provide a schematic diagram showing the process of computation and data collection to be easily followed and clear to the readers.

5. I think sec 4 can be the conclusion.

6. The authors can add al  the symbol the section of abbreviation

7. The authors can try to compare the results with the empirical formulas used for cavitation from the design point of view, such as Keller and Burrill as well as noise limitations as presented in this paper: https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10081039

8. Why there is a reduction in Vp(blue line) in fig 7?

9. From your point of view regarding the results, what are the procedures that you suggest to reduce noise and cavitation? You can mention at the end as recommendations

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, this study has clear research objectives, reasonable research methods, and meaningful research results. However, there are still some issues that need to be raised.

1.The research gap needs to be highlighted

2.The introduction of sensor arrangement is not clear enough.

3.Is there any other interference signal within the signal collected by the pressure sensor?

4.This study focuses on signal analysis, but are the signals themselves representative?

5.It seems more appropriate to submit this paper to a signal processing related journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept

Author Response

We appreciate the acceptance of our amendments and thank you for the helpful comments which improved the submitted research report.

Reviewer 2 Report

None

Author Response

We appreciate the acceptance of our amendments and thank you for the helpful comments which improved the submitted research report.

Back to TopTop