Analysis of Flow-Induced Vibration Control in a Pontoon Carrier Based on a Pendulum-Tuned Mass Damper

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript, the authors discuss the Pendulum Tuned Mass Damper (PTMD) as a vibration reduction device. They apply PTMD to the SSXCTD buoyancy platform, successfully mitigating flow-induced vibrations, improving stability, and offering insights for marine equipment design. The manuscript necessitates comprehensive elucidation and the provision of finer details across all sections. The current format does not meet the acceptance criteria.

1) Enhance the introduction with more relevant references, including a comprehensive review of vibration control methods for SSXCTD buoys and similar vessels.

2) Clearly articulate the innovation, novelty, main differences, main contributions, and research gaps.

3) For the vibration modeling of SSXCTD Buoyancy Vehicle (Section 2.2), confirm whether these equations appear in other references or explain the methods employed for modeling vibrations in underwater suspended cylindrical structures.

4) Explain the rationale behind selecting frequency values (line 232).

5) Emphasize the need for setting optimal TMD parameters (line 247) in finite element simulations for effective vibration control, aligning with a defined target index for minimization.

6) Validate the finite element solution.

7) Clarify the use of the term "finite element" instead of "finite volume" in ANSYS Fluent, considering the non-elastic structure placed on an elastic bed.

8) Address whether TMD is considered in the ANSYS Fluent section.

9) Provide an explanation of how the cylindrical structure equations, TMD equations, flow equations, and their interaction are delineated in each time step.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. ANSYS Fluent is a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software that uses the finite volume method (FVM). It is somewhat awkward to use the term FE (finite element) simulation in this text.

2. How were the results of the CFD analysis validated?

For the most part, it's well-written, and I'd only recommend double-checking for grammar.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer’s remarks:

1) The equality in the top line of Eq. (6) should be checked.

2) In Eq. (7), the expression for \lambda_44 should be specified.

3) In Fig. 5 for the right graph, the curves for t=0.96 are repeated twice. Why?

4) For Figs. 9 and 10 it is difficult to find a difference. The image should be

made more informative. The same remark also applies to Figs. 11 and 12.

5) It should be checked the text on p. 8 (line 249), p. 11 (lines 334, 337).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made an effort to address the questions raised. The manuscript has undergone improvement since its previous submission, though it would benefit from more comprehensive explanations within the text. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study utilized CFD simulation to perform the analysis. However, there is still the question of whether CFD simulation results can be trusted. In order to increase the reliability of the simulation results, it is necessary to compare them with experimental results from the existing literature or experimental results performed by yourself.

Author Response

请参阅附件

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept as it is.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf