Comparative Study on the Performances of a Hinged Flap-Type Wave Energy Converter Considering Both Fixed and Floating Bases
, Qihao Yun 2, Thiago S. Hallak 3, Hao Zhou 4,*, Kai Zhang 4, Yi Yang 5, Tao Tao 5, Shi Liu 5, Wei Jiang 6 and Changjie Li 7Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presented a study on “Comparative study on the performances of a hinged flap-type wave energy converter considering both fixed and floating bases”. Some issues need clarification.
REVIEWER COMMENT:
1. Need to provide nomenclature.
2. Quantitative result are not presented in the abstract.
3. Need to provide methodology and related parameters in the abstract.
4. Page 2, line 55, typo “was was”.
5. Page 2 line 59, word “today..” is not suitable.
6. Page 2, line 98, typo “0”.
7. Authors need to summarize the findings for each sub-topic not only presenting what has been done by previous studies.
8. Page 11, line 335. please add references for the value Kpto to 1×107 N·m/rad and Bpto to 1×108 N·m/(rad/s). Why this value is being used in the present study.
9. Most of the discussion presenting data without critical discussion on the issue that contribute to the data. This needs to be added in the manuscript, since the reason behind the data is important to the reader.
10. Basically, potential flow analysis has some difficulties to accurately predict the motion of floating body and water elevation, especially near the resonance. How the results provided by the authors are in excellent agreement near the peak at the resonance period.
11. Please describe how the viscosity and air compressibility effect were introduced in this study.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome mistake and typo was seen. Better to submit for proofread.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ valuable suggestions and comments. We have revised the paper according to the suggestions and comments by Review #1 and the detailed responses to the Reviews are as follows.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments :
The article deals with an interesting subject and the results are well illustrated although the China sea does not seem to be the better location for the considered WEC and FWP system.
Detailed comments :
Line 55 : “was was” should be “was”.
Line 98 : Final “0” at end of the line should be deleted.
Equation (4) : “p” on lines 2 and 3 should be the Greek letter “rho”.
The unit normal vector n and the elementary radiation potentials phi_j should be introduced.
Line 166 : “w” should be the Greek letter “omega”.
Equation (6) : the denominator should be {-omega^2*[M+A(omega)]+i*omega*B(omega)+C}
Equation (8) : the definition of “H” should be introduced.
Equation (11) : “M_j” should be “M_jj” and “M_kk”.
Equation (12) : in the integral “theta” should be the time derivative of “theta”.
Equation (13) : “omega” should be the natural frequency “omega_0”.
Equation (16) : water depth “d” is different from the distance in equation (5).
Line 262 : “meters height” could be “meters high” ?
Table 2 : “length” could be “height”.
Line 280 : is “encryption” the correct word ? Could be “characteristic mesh size” ?
Line 294 : the parameter “alpha” should be more precisely defined.
Line 298 : “Moreover, the effects of hydrodynamic interference seem to be stronger on the damping values when compared to the added mass values.” Is it really true?
Figure 4 : It could be pointed out that the effect of N=4,5,6,7 is small for the heave modes.
Figure 4 and figure 5 : Could you please illustrate and comment about the interaction added masses and damping (Ajk, Akj, Bjk, Bkj) ?
Line 337 :” shifts to a higher frequency shifts to a higher frequency” should be” shifts to a higher frequency”.
Line 340 : “observed the” should be “observed”.
Line 345 : “similar the” could be “similar to the case of the” ?
Figure 6 : what is the purpose of the word “hingled”?
Figure 6 : the vertical coordinates of figures (a) and (b) could be the same for a better comparison.
Figure 7 : the vertical coordinates and colour scales of figures (a) and (b) could be the same for a better comparison.
Figure 8 : the vertical coordinates and colour scales of the figures could be the same for a better comparison and understanding.
Figure 9 : for a better comparison same colour could be used for single and double and continuous lines for single and dotted lines for double.
Lines 368, 378, 469, 480 : is “geometric density” the correct wording?
Line 475 : “there effects” should be “the effects”.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Please look at the above comments to correct or improve the text.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ valuable suggestions and comments. We have revised the paper according to the suggestions and comments by Review #1 and the detailed responses to the Reviews are as follows.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
