Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic and CFD Modeling of a Tidal Barrage Power Plant without Sluicing in Buenaventura, Colombia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be considered for publication only after major revisions/clarifications (see the comments in the attached marked manuscript).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing is required

Author Response

Dear reviever,

We appreciate your time for reading our manuscript. Each comment and highligthed phrase placed by you were revised and attended in the tracked-changes version of the new version of the manuscript.

thank you a lot.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the hydrodynamic characteristics of a tidal barrage power plant without sluicing in Buenaventura Bay are studied by means of a 3D hydrodynamic model (Delft3D) and a CFD model (Autodesk). The main tidal events of 2021, namely Syzygy, Stoa and Quadrature, were selected for the study, and the results of the flow and velocity characteristics enrich the knowledge of the potential of tidal energy generation in Colombia. This paper shows for the first time the high possibility of implementing tidal barrage power plants without sluicing in Buenaventura.

This paper can be accepted after major revisions.

However, the verification of the reliability of the computational model would be more credible if more comparative results could be presented. At the same time, the final calculation results need to be presented in a more intuitive way, for example, it would be clearer if they could be presented by drawing pictures instead of tables. Finally, many typographies and details still need to be revised and improved.

1. Page 4, Figure 2, markers of the picture are not clear enough, and it would be better if the two small pictures a) and b) inside are changed to horizontal and juxtaposed. The formula number "Eq.1" is too close to the content of the formula, and the position should be aligned to the right.

2. The table on Page 5 is incorrectly numbered. "Table 1" is mentioned in the main text, but the table you actually see starts with number 2.

3. Page 7, the heading is incorrectly numbered, "3.1 Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) modelling" should be "3.2".

4. Page 8, Figure 5 has an outer border, which is inconsistent with the format of other figures.

5. Page 9, the text of "Figure 6" is not in bold and is inconsistent with the format of other figures.

6. Many superscripts and subscripts are not formatted correctly, "9.81 m/s2" on page 4 should be the superscript, "y3" should be the subscript, and multiple "m3/s" on pages 9 and 12 should be superscripts.

7. Page 10, the first two paragraphs should be indented at the beginning of the first line. Column 2 of Table 5 is not clearly distinguished.

8. Page 11, the line number "308" is in the wrong place.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please see our response in the attached word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I acknowledge the work done by the Authors to improve the original manuscript. However, they have not addressed all my questions. It is unclear how some model parameters were estimated (for example, Chezy coefficient, horizontal eddy viscosity and diffusivity, etc.) as well as why the standard k-epsilon turbulence model was applied. I have suggested a reference paper (Blocken and Gualtieri, 2012) to explain how a CFD study should be presented in a scientific journal. These issues must be fixed before publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A final proof-reading is needed.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,  we appreciate your support during the review of our manuscript. Please see in the pdf file our reply to your comments. thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no further comments. The paper can be published in its current form.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,  thank you by your support for improving our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable comments that have  enhanced the document. kind regards

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be published after a careful proof-reading.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript can be published after a careful proof-reading.