Design Process and Advanced Manufacturing of an Aquatic Surface Vehicle Hull for the Integration of a Hydrogen Power Plant Propulsion System
, Alberto Giménez Sancho 1, Eduardo López González 2, Adelaida GarcÃa Magariño 3, Félix Terroba RamÃrez 3, Francisco Javier Moreno Ayerbe 3 and Fernando Sánchez López 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study, as titled, deals with the design and fabrication of an aquatic surface vehicle and focuses primarily on fluid performance estimation through CFD and EFD (mainly concerning resistance) and manufacturing based on 3D printing. I reviewed the paper with great interest, but the paper needs to be greatly improved in many points not only as and for a scientific journal paper but even also for or a technical review paper.
It is well known that optimization must be performed from different perspectives for different variables and their combinations. In the case of a ship, hydrodynamic, structural, seakeeping, maneuvering, noise and vibration performance must be studied and optimized individually or collectively. In the case of basic design, hull shape, general arrangement, light weight and stability estimation would have to be performed. For optimization, a systematic parameter study of the main variables and objective functions is required, but apart from the literature study, this information is difficult to find.
1. Details on design condition, such as the main particulars, design speed and so on, are needed.
2. Regarding fluid performance
2.1 Please indicate Froude number and Reynolds number.
2.2 Details on hull-form development related to resistance performance are needed.
2.3. Seakeeping (and maneuverability): Results from motion analysis and, if possible, maneuverability simulations are required.
3. Regarding CFD
3.1 Information on the adopted numerical techniques and algorithms is needed.
3.2 Please present validation & verification and grid convergence test (including figures of grid systems).
3.3 CFD should also be performed under the same speed conditions at which the experiment were performed.
3.4 Is the change of the ship’s motion considered?
4. Regarding Manufacturing:
4.1 It is difficult to understand which aspects have been optimized.
5. Miscellaneous
5.1 A flow chart of the entire process would be helpful for readers' understanding.
5.2 The meaning of some words is not concrete, such as USV and Hydrogen Plant.
5.3 On p.10 line 6 ‘validated by the research team’: please, indicate the reference.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageN/A
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper deals with design and manufacturing of an autonomous aquatic surface vehicle. The authors present in details all steps of development. The work is interesting and might be of interest to the research community dealing with optimization of structures and CFD. However, the paper needs some serious improvements before any final decision.
1) The paper has not been carefully checked before submission. There are parts of the text marked in yellow and even with some comments leaving a strong impression that this is not a version of the paper that would be ready for submission. For instance, check line 156, lines 263-264, etc. It does not make a positive impression to see something like this.
2) The quality of English language must be improved. It is generally readable and comprehensible, however there are some basic mistakes, either grammar mistakes or in the selection of words. For instance:
Line 39: “but the vessel consumption is related with the hull design” The authors probably mean energy consumption and not vessel consumption. Also, related to and not related with.
Line 39: “Few scientists papers…” should be A few scientific papers
Line 70: “simplifies the comparative between” should be simplifies the comparison between
Lines 69-73: The sentence: “This CFD software simplifies the comparative between different hull designs analysing and visualizing from the ship’s resistance, dynamic pressure distribution on the hull surface until the streamlines, hull skin friction or the wave elevation around ship in order to optimize the final design, minimizing the drag force to achieve the required propulsion power” should be reformulated and divided into several sentences to improve comprehensibility and readability.
Line 168: “that must be easily apply” should be that must be easily applied
Line 169: “larger transportation methods” should be larger transportation means
Etc.
3) The authors introduce the abbreviation USV for “hydrogen-powered autonomous aquatic surface vehicle” in the abstract. So, where U comes from? Presumably, it should originate from the word “unmanned”, which is however here not present.
4) The introduction does not provide an acceptable overview of the work in the field. It is suggested to provide some overview of works in the field of structural optimization and to mention different directions of work. For instance:
Wu, F., Lian, H., Pei, G., Guo, B., & Wang, Z. (2023). Design and optimization of the variable-density lattice structure based on load paths. Facta Univ. Ser. Mech. Eng., 21(2), 273-292. doi:https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME220108017W
5) “The prototype final hull size was fixed by the need to fit it within a standard car trunk, keeping in mind the commitment to practicality and scalability.” Please, provide the design constraints I terms of numbers.
6) Figure 2 has parts a, b, c and d. This must be reflected in the title. The title must provide the information what each figure part represents.
7) Line 261: “”A mesh with hexahedral and tetrahedral elements was generated…” Please, provide the information related to the mesh. Linear of quadratic elements. How many degrees of freedom? Have you performed a convergence analysis?
8) Line 263: “so the Y+ = 1 target was set and thus no wall functions were needed.” This requires an explanation.
9) “Therefore, it was concluded that the design of the hull met the expectations from the hydrodynamic point of view.” Please, specify the expectations.
10) The numbers and the text in Figure 3 are not readable.
11) The authors refer to an optimized hull. First of all, I would expect to see clearly defined optimization problem – what exactly is the optimization function and what are the optimization constraints (except for the mentioned constrained that it should fit into the transportation means? Then, I would expect to see the development of the design. How the hull design developed though design iterations. This would probably be the most interesting part of the work, but it is not presented.
12) The conclusions should include limitations of the work done. I am also missing some more general conclusions.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome basic grammar mistakes present; wrong selection of words; long sentences, difficult to follow. Examples are provided in the comments for the authors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper reports the design process and manufacturing of a hull for an aquatic surface vehicle powered by a hydrogen propulsion system. However, there are some points to be addressed.
(1) the motivation is not clear. It is stated in the introduction that "Few scientists papers focus on the vessel optimal design but mostly of them are showing commercial vessel modifications and adaptations". Actually, many studies foucus on the vessel optimal design. In this sense, the literature review is not sufficient. The motivation should be explained in the introduction.
(2) The details of optimal design of the trimanran are not clear, including the design variables, constraints, optimization strategy, optimization results and comparison, etc.
(3) the expalnation of the CFD calculation is not enough, including the solver, turbulance model, meshing, remarks on the results, etc.
(4) the validation of CFD is missing. No comparison between CFD and experiments is conducted.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is highly recommended to put table(s) for main particulars, design criteria and so forth, instead of text. Please refer other papers regarding ship resistance , whether it is on EFD and/or CFD.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made some serious efforts to improve the manuscript and managed to do so in most important aspects. The manuscript can be accepted for publishing.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll my concerns have been well addressed. I recommend the paper to be accepted.
