Hydrodynamic Analysis of Tidal Current Turbine under Water-Sediment Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper "Hydrodynamic analysis of tidal current turbine under water-sediment conditions" with reference number jmse-1647417 is recommended for corrections.

However the following technical observations hold:

STRENGTHS:

1.    Good flow, outline and presentation of the application of tidal turbine system with airfoil design. 
   2.   Authors included an image for framework illustration which could be better attributed too in the Introduction. 
   3.    Good discussion and conclusion.
   4.    Good introduction but must be improved.
   5.    Good highlights and abstract.
   6.    Authors have good knowledge of the subject area. It is evident in Good presentation of the work, and some mathematical formulations.
   7.    Good signposting and cross-referencing. This is evident in the last paragraph in Section 1.
   8.    Good definition of abbreviations and nomenclature. Check that all are well defined. Could do with use of abbreviations list.

9. The subject addressed in this article is worthy of investigation
   10. The information presented is not very new but has elements of originality.
   11. The conclusions are supported by the data.
10. The manuscript is appropriate for the journal.
11. Organization of the manuscript is appropriate
12. Figures, tables and supplementary data are appropriate

 

WEAKNESSES:

1.     In Introduction, there should be a sentence that defines the connection between the tidal turbine and the airfoil.
   2.    There is an issue on the position of the abbreviations and nomenclature. Prepare the  abbreviations list to the end, before References Section (suggestive, not compulsory to add it).
   3.    In Section 1, authors should add some issues or try to address such limitations of the work, which this work conducted addressed in Conclusion. 
   4.    No graphical abstract was found but it is recommended.
   5.    In discussion, add some references too to explain some of the reasons to justify the work conducted. How were the metrics used in the DFM model chosen? What are the considerations used to define the selected data relative to the tidal wind factor? 
   6.    The results in this work are quite sufficient on the study but can be improved with more discussion and references. Include more justification of the results by discussing them, maybe more comparative graph or profile plots on the findings, if possible. Include more technical discussion in the body's content in the paper by improving on the discussion.
   7.    A limitation of the study is that authors did not define the methodology very well. Improve on the steps taken to produce the results.
   8.    English language check and editing is required. Some proof reading is needed, likely using a native English speaker or one with good English strength. 
   9.    Rewrite the last sentence in Conclusion. Replace "However, further investigation needs be done with considering the particle to particle interaction when at high particle concentration" with "However, further investigation needs be done by considering the particle-to-particle interaction under high particle concentration".
   10.    Also add reference to every equation presented that is not original to the authorship, appropriately. Make sure that all equations that are not original to the authors are referenced as cited.
   11. In Introduction, it should have more latest works on the subject area as it will improve its citeability and technical relevance.  Add these https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218768;  https://doi.org/10.3390/inventions7010031
   
   

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The lift and drag coefficients of airfoil are studied with the aid of a CFD model. The results are compared against observations from a wind turbine in Zhoushan. The manuscript is well written, and the results are well presented. However, the English language grammar and expression need to be improved. Bellow are some minor comments:

Abstract

Line 9: “which is much higher than other countries”
How much higher? Include examples of other countries.

Introduction

First paragraph: It is not clear if the authors are discussing tidal energy in rivers or in the sea?

Line 51: “high concentration of sediment only exists in China”
Specify the concentration and provide reference.

Line 55 to 79: This is a very long paragraph. I suggest you divide it into shorter ones.

Line 68: “Discrete Element Method and Discrete Phase Model”
Replace with “Discrete Element Method (DEM) and Discrete Phase Model (DPM)”

Section 2:

Line 113: Provide reference for “Morsi and Alexander”

Line 130: Provide reference for “Zhou”

Line 148: “Detailed information about Gk , Yk , k S , Gw ,Yw , Dw and Sw can be found in [30] and not specified here.”
May be worth adding a short general description of these parameters for clarity.

Section 2.4: I suggest adding a description for “Airfoil” and its meaning in the concept of this study.

I suggest including the equation 2-37 into section 2.4.1 and equation 2-38 into section 2.4.2.

Section 3:

Section 3.1: I suggest adding a map to show the location of the turbine.

Line 213: Provide reference for “ANSYS”

Figure 3: It is unclear what subplots (a) and (b) are showing.

Table 1: Are these design parameters from Zhoushan? If yes, make it clear both in text and the figure caption.

Table 2: same as Table 1.

Figure 6: I suggest plotting the lines with different colours to make the figure clearer for readers.

Figure 7: It is not clear what the colours are showing in subplot (b). I suggest adding the information about airfoil element number in the text as it is also relevant to Figure 8.

Section 4:

Figure 11: I suggest plotting the fluid velocity with dashed line to make the plot clearer.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf