A Survey of Numerical Simulation Tools for Offshore Wind Turbine Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have had the opportunity to review your study titled, "A Survey of Numerical Simulation Tools for Offshore Wind Turbines," and I would like to offer some constructive feedback to enhance the clarity and accuracy of the manuscript:

1) **Title Suggestion:** Considering the depth of your work, which seems to focus more on the systematic level rather than individual components of wind turbines, might I suggest a title revision to "Offshore Wind Turbine Systems"?

2) **Lines 20-21:** I noticed that the current developments in offshore wind farms in China and the US might not be fully captured in this section. It would be beneficial to revisit and update this information to reflect the latest advancements.

3) **Figure 1 and Subsequent Figures:** It appears that the plots might have been sourced from NREL. To ensure proper attribution, could you consider modifying the caption to "Adapted from NREL" or a similar acknowledgment?

4) **Resolution of Figures:** The resolution of Figure 1 and other related figures seems to be on the lower side, which might affect the clarity for readers. If possible, kindly enhance the image quality for better readability.

5) **Scope of Tools:** The study predominantly discusses tools available for horizontal axis wind turbines. Given that the title does not specify HAWT, it would be enriching to also touch upon or at least discuss about vertical axis wind turbines. I recommend referring to the recent advancements in this area, such as the work by "Gharaati, M., Xiao, S., Wei, N. J., Martínez-Tossas, L. A., Dabiri, J. O., & Yang, D. (2022). Large-eddy simulation of helical-and straight-bladed vertical-axis wind turbines in boundary layer turbulence. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 14(5)."

6) **Line 399:** There seems to be a typographical error with the term "turbinre concept." Could you please review and rectify this?

7) **Table 1:** I observed that some words are extending beyond the table boundaries. Adjusting the table formatting should address this issue.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful in refining your manuscript. I appreciate the effort and research that has gone into this work, and I look forward to seeing the final version.

Author Response

Response To Reviewers’ Comments

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your thoughtful review of our manuscript titled "A Survey of Numerical Simulation Tools for Offshore Wind Turbines." We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have invested in providing constructive feedback. We have carefully considered your suggestions and made the revisions described below.

Reviewer 1:

I have had the opportunity to review your study titled, "A Survey of Numerical Simulation Tools for Offshore Wind Turbines," and I would like to offer some constructive feedback to enhance the clarity and accuracy of the manuscript:

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Comment 1: **Title Suggestion:** Considering the depth of your work, which seems to focus more on the systematic level rather than individual components of wind turbines, might I suggest a title revision to "Offshore Wind Turbine Systems"?

Response 1: We are grateful for your insightful title suggestion. Recognizing the broader focus on offshore wind turbine systems, we have revised the title to "A Survey of Numerical Simulation Tools for Offshore Wind Turbine Systems" to better align with the content of our paper.

Comment 2: **Lines 20-21:** I noticed that the current developments in offshore wind farms in China and the US might not be fully captured in this section. It would be beneficial to revisit and update this information to reflect the latest advancements.

Response 2: We acknowledge the dynamic nature of the offshore wind energy landscape, particularly in regions such as China and the US. To ensure our manuscript reflects the latest advancements, we have included a new paragraph in the introduction to reflect the recent progress in floating offshore wind farms worldwide.

Comment 3: **Figure 1 and Subsequent Figures:** It appears that the plots might have been sourced from NREL. To ensure proper attribution, could you consider modifying the caption to "Adapted from NREL" or a similar acknowledgment?

Response 3: We appreciate your attention to detail regarding figure attribution. While the plots have been sourced from specific papers, we have ensured that each figure caption explicitly acknowledges the source, providing proper attribution.

Comment 4: **Resolution of Figures:** The resolution of Figure 1 and other related figures seems to be on the lower side, which might affect the clarity for readers. If possible, kindly enhance the image quality for better readability.

Response 4: Your observation on the resolution of figures is valuable. In response, we have taken steps to enhance the image quality of Figure 1 and related figures, aiming to improve readability for the readers.

Comment 5: **Scope of Tools:** The study predominantly discusses tools available for horizontal axis wind turbines. Given that the title does not specify HAWT, it would be enriching to also touch upon or at least discuss about vertical axis wind turbines. I recommend referring to the recent advancements in this area, such as the work by "Gharaati, M., Xiao, S., Wei, N. J., Martínez-Tossas, L. A., Dabiri, J. O., & Yang, D. (2022). Large-eddy simulation of helical-and straight-bladed vertical-axis wind turbines in boundary layer turbulence. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 14(5)."

Response 5: We sincerely thank you for highlighting the potential enrichment of our study by including a discussion on vertical axis wind turbines. However, it is worth noting that our survey focuses specifically on floating offshore wind turbines, which predominantly employ horizontal axis wind turbines. Based on current knowledge, this remains the prevailing technology in this domain, aligning with our scope.

Comment 6: **Line 399:** There seems to be a typographical error with the term "turbinre concept." Could you please review and rectify this?

Response 6: We apologize for the typographical error in Line 399. This has been rectified in the revised manuscript.

Comment 7: **Table 1:** I observed that some words are extending beyond the table boundaries. Adjusting the table formatting should address this issue.

Response 7: We are grateful for your keen observation. In response, we have meticulously adjusted the table formatting to ensure that no words extend beyond the table boundaries.

Final Comment: I hope these suggestions prove helpful in refining your manuscript. I appreciate the effort and research that has gone into this work, and I look forward to seeing the final version.

Response: We genuinely value your feedback and believe that these enhancements have strengthened the clarity and accuracy of our manuscript. We look forward to your further insights and are eager to present the final version of our work.

*************************************************************************************

Reviewer 2:

A variety of numerical tools have been developed to simulate dynamics of FOWTs and related phenomena. The study presented focuses on a survey of numerical tools available for simulating FOWTs, assessing their capabilities and limitations.

 The subject matter of the paper maybe of minor interest to readers of the journal, but unfortunately, the paper presents nothing of novelty or originality that is worthy of publication. The novelty of the research component is not well articulated in the text. The paper lacks detailed description of numerical methods developed in various tools. Therefore, outcomes of the study and its contents are inconsistent. Comparison of software tools in terms of their performance, computational efficiency and accuracy is missing.

The abstract of the paper should be entirely re-written. It should be more informative for the reader. Aim and objectives of the paper should be clearly identified. Introductory section could be significantly improved giving critical analysis of the available methods and results. Conclusions are too general and could be more specific in order to demonstrate the principal authors’ achievements and findings. It is necessary to highlight the authors' contribution to the field (new results, new methods, etc.).

Response:

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and providing us with your valuable feedback. Your comments are important to us, and we are committed to addressing them in order to enhance the quality and clarity of our paper.

While we highly value your suggestions for improvement in the abstract, introduction, and conclusions, it is worth noting that other reviewers have expressed satisfaction with the content and material of our paper. This makes it a bit challenging to consider a complete overhaul of these sections, as it may potentially contradict the overall scope and focus of our study.

It is imperative to clarify that our paper is not designed as a review article introducing novel methods, but rather serves as a comprehensive survey of existing simulation tools, as indicated by the title. As a review paper, it is not anticipated to present groundbreaking scientific or technical concepts.

We genuinely appreciate your valuable insights and remain open to further discussion on any specific points you believe warrant additional attention.

*************************************************************************************

Reviewer 3:

The paper consists of a summary of prominent numerical tools and codes that are typically used in both research and industry.

Reviewer's Comment: In essence, the article is a review of these existing codes which however does not subscribe to what would be expected with a proper academic literature review. The article feels more like a summary rather than a critical review.

Response: We greatly appreciate the reviewer's thoughtful assessment. As indicated by the title of our paper, our aim was to provide a comprehensive overview of existing simulation tool packages commonly employed in Offshore Wind Energy (OWE) projects led by IEA. The intent was to offer readers a broad understanding of these packages' capabilities and underlying theories. This work was not designed to critically evaluate them or delve into their specific strengths and weaknesses.

Reviewer's Comment: Also, the paper has been submitted as an article but to this reviewer, this would have been more appropriate as a review article.

Response: We acknowledge the oversight in categorizing our submission. We kindly request, upon resubmission, that the associate editor consider reevaluating the paper's categorization and, if deemed more appropriate, reclassify it as a review article.

Reviewer's Comment: The codes mentioned are all mainstream codes that have been used by various groups. Nevertheless it would have been also useful to refer to other types of codes and models that have been used by numerous authors. For example, various approaches with CFD codes have been utilized to study both coupled and de-coupled scenarios. These models have been developed in both commercial and non-commercial CFD codes.

Response: As previously mentioned, our objective was to provide readers with a comprehensive overview of existing simulation tool packages dedicated to independently simulating and analyzing floating offshore wind turbines. We aimed to cover the three primary modules: structural, aerodynamic, and hydrodynamic. In future work, we plan to conduct a thorough review of the aerodynamic module, including an in-depth exploration of critical tools such as CFD codes, as highlighted by the reviewer.

Reviewer's Comment: The discussion section is interesting but the paper’s primary focus is in providing a brief summary of codes which readers could easily refer to in other literature. As such the usefulness of the article becomes questionable and does not add much to what already exists albeit in separate papers.

Reviewer's Comment: A review article is usually more ambitious and should try to pave the way for future research directions. This key feature is not found in this article.

Response: As previously outlined, our primary aim in this paper was to offer a thorough compilation of existing simulation tool packages capable of independently simulating and analyzing floating offshore wind turbines. By consolidating this information, we aimed to provide a valuable resource for future researchers seeking a comprehensive understanding of available options. This, in turn, enables them to streamline their focus towards reviewing the most pertinent literature, specifically related to the tools relevant to their work.

*************************************************************************************

Reviewer 4:

In this work, a survey of numerical methods with the primary objective of evaluating and comparing various simulation tools for FOWTs (Floating Of Shore Wind Turbines) have been conducted.

Authors have comprehensively covered the numerical simulation tools that have participated in the Offshore Code Comparison (OC) projects.

The introduction provides sufficient background while including relevant references.

The survey approach is appropriate and well structured.

Survey approach covered various simulation tools for FOWTs which are briefly but adequately described.

The conclusion is well supported by the survey content presented.

Response:

We deeply appreciate your meticulous review and constructive feedback on our paper. Your positive assessment is invaluable to us. Your recognition of the comprehensiveness and structure of our survey on numerical methods for Floating Offshore Wind Turbines (FOWTs), including the coverage of simulation tools in the Offshore Code Comparison (OC) projects, is particularly encouraging.

We are also heartened by your positive remarks on the introduction, highlighting its well-researched background and references. Your affirmation of the appropriateness of the survey approach and the clarity of descriptions for various simulation tools for FOWTs is greatly appreciated. Moreover, your acknowledgment of the conclusion's robust support from the survey content is particularly gratifying.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

A variety of numerical tools have been developed to simulate dynamics of FOWTs and related phenomena. The study presented focuses on a survey of numerical tools available for simulating FOWTs, assessing their capabilities and limitations.

 The subject matter of the paper maybe of minor interest to readers of the journal, but unfortunately, the paper presents nothing of novelty or originality that is worthy of publication. The novelty of the research component is not well articulated in the text. The paper lacks detailed description of numerical methods developed in various tools. Therefore, outcomes of the study and its contents are inconsistent. Comparison of software tools in terms of their performance, computational efficiency and accuracy is missing.

 The abstract of the paper should be entirely re-written. It should be more informative for the reader. Aim and objectives of the paper should be clearly identified. Introductory section could be significantly improved giving critical analysis of the available methods and results. Conclusions are too general and could be more specific in order to demonstrate the principal authors’ achievements and findings. It is necessary to highlight the authors' contribution to the field (new results, new methods, etc.).

Author Response

Response To Reviewers’ Comments

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your thoughtful review of our manuscript titled "A Survey of Numerical Simulation Tools for Offshore Wind Turbines." We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have invested in providing constructive feedback. We have carefully considered your suggestions and made the revisions described below.

Reviewer 2:

A variety of numerical tools have been developed to simulate dynamics of FOWTs and related phenomena. The study presented focuses on a survey of numerical tools available for simulating FOWTs, assessing their capabilities and limitations.

 The subject matter of the paper maybe of minor interest to readers of the journal, but unfortunately, the paper presents nothing of novelty or originality that is worthy of publication. The novelty of the research component is not well articulated in the text. The paper lacks detailed description of numerical methods developed in various tools. Therefore, outcomes of the study and its contents are inconsistent. Comparison of software tools in terms of their performance, computational efficiency and accuracy is missing.

The abstract of the paper should be entirely re-written. It should be more informative for the reader. Aim and objectives of the paper should be clearly identified. Introductory section could be significantly improved giving critical analysis of the available methods and results. Conclusions are too general and could be more specific in order to demonstrate the principal authors’ achievements and findings. It is necessary to highlight the authors' contribution to the field (new results, new methods, etc.).

Response:

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and providing us with your valuable feedback. Your comments are important to us, and we are committed to addressing them in order to enhance the quality and clarity of our paper.

While we highly value your suggestions for improvement in the abstract, introduction, and conclusions, it is worth noting that other reviewers have expressed satisfaction with the content and material of our paper. This makes it a bit challenging to consider a complete overhaul of these sections, as it may potentially contradict the overall scope and focus of our study.

It is imperative to clarify that our paper is not designed as a review article introducing novel methods, but rather serves as a comprehensive survey of existing simulation tools, as indicated by the title. As a review paper, it is not anticipated to present groundbreaking scientific or technical concepts.

We genuinely appreciate your valuable insights and remain open to further discussion on any specific points you believe warrant additional attention.

***********************************************************************************

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

-       The paper consists of a summary of prominent numerical tools and codes that are typically used in both research and industry. 

-       In essence the article is a review of these existing codes which however does not subscribe to what would be expected with a proper academic literature review. The article feels more like a summary rather than a critical review.

-       Also, the paper has been submitted as an article but to this reviewer this would have been more appropriate as a review article.

-       The codes mentioned are all mainstream codes that have been used by various groups. Nevertheless it would have been also useful to refer to other types of codes and models that have been used by numerous authors. For example, various approaches with CFD codes have been utilized to study both coupled and de-coupled scenarios. These models have been developed in both commercial and non-commercial CFD codes.

-       The discussion section is interesting but the paper’s primary focus is in providing a brief summary of codes which readers could easily refer to in other literature. As such the usefulness of the article becomes questionable and does not add much to what already exists albeit in separate papers.

-       A review article is usually more ambitious and should try to pave the way for future research directions. This key feature is not found in this article. 

Author Response

Response To Reviewers’ Comments

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your thoughtful review of our manuscript titled "A Survey of Numerical Simulation Tools for Offshore Wind Turbines." We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have invested in providing constructive feedback. We have carefully considered your suggestions and made the revisions described below.

Reviewer 3:

The paper consists of a summary of prominent numerical tools and codes that are typically used in both research and industry.

Reviewer's Comment: In essence, the article is a review of these existing codes which however does not subscribe to what would be expected with a proper academic literature review. The article feels more like a summary rather than a critical review.

Response: We greatly appreciate the reviewer's thoughtful assessment. As indicated by the title of our paper, our aim was to provide a comprehensive overview of existing simulation tool packages commonly employed in Offshore Wind Energy (OWE) projects led by IEA. The intent was to offer readers a broad understanding of these packages' capabilities and underlying theories. This work was not designed to critically evaluate them or delve into their specific strengths and weaknesses.

Reviewer's Comment: Also, the paper has been submitted as an article but to this reviewer, this would have been more appropriate as a review article.

Response: We acknowledge the oversight in categorizing our submission. We kindly request, upon resubmission, that the associate editor consider reevaluating the paper's categorization and, if deemed more appropriate, reclassify it as a review article.

Reviewer's Comment: The codes mentioned are all mainstream codes that have been used by various groups. Nevertheless it would have been also useful to refer to other types of codes and models that have been used by numerous authors. For example, various approaches with CFD codes have been utilized to study both coupled and de-coupled scenarios. These models have been developed in both commercial and non-commercial CFD codes.

Response: As previously mentioned, our objective was to provide readers with a comprehensive overview of existing simulation tool packages dedicated to independently simulating and analyzing floating offshore wind turbines. We aimed to cover the three primary modules: structural, aerodynamic, and hydrodynamic. In future work, we plan to conduct a thorough review of the aerodynamic module, including an in-depth exploration of critical tools such as CFD codes, as highlighted by the reviewer.

Reviewer's Comment: The discussion section is interesting but the paper’s primary focus is in providing a brief summary of codes which readers could easily refer to in other literature. As such the usefulness of the article becomes questionable and does not add much to what already exists albeit in separate papers.

Reviewer's Comment: A review article is usually more ambitious and should try to pave the way for future research directions. This key feature is not found in this article.

Response: As previously outlined, our primary aim in this paper was to offer a thorough compilation of existing simulation tool packages capable of independently simulating and analyzing floating offshore wind turbines. By consolidating this information, we aimed to provide a valuable resource for future researchers seeking a comprehensive understanding of available options. This, in turn, enables them to streamline their focus towards reviewing the most pertinent literature, specifically related to the tools relevant to their work.

*************************************************************************************

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this work, a survey of numerical methods with the primary objective of evaluating and comparing various simulation tools for FOWTs (Floating Of Shore Wind Turbines) have been conducted. 

Authors have comprehensively covered the numerical simulation tools that have participated in the Offshore Code Comparison (OC) projects.

The introduction provides sufficient background while including relevant references. 

The survey approach is appropriate and well structured. 

Survey approach covered various simulation tools for FOWTs which are briefly but adequately described.

The conclusion is well supported by the survey content presented.

Authors are kindly advised to improve font visibility in the figures and tables.

Author Response

Response To Reviewers’ Comments

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your thoughtful review of our manuscript titled "A Survey of Numerical Simulation Tools for Offshore Wind Turbines." We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have invested in providing constructive feedback. We have carefully considered your suggestions and made the revisions described below.

Reviewer 1:

I have had the opportunity to review your study titled, "A Survey of Numerical Simulation Tools for Offshore Wind Turbines," and I would like to offer some constructive feedback to enhance the clarity and accuracy of the manuscript:

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Comment 1: **Title Suggestion:** Considering the depth of your work, which seems to focus more on the systematic level rather than individual components of wind turbines, might I suggest a title revision to "Offshore Wind Turbine Systems"?

Response 1: We are grateful for your insightful title suggestion. Recognizing the broader focus on offshore wind turbine systems, we have revised the title to "A Survey of Numerical Simulation Tools for Offshore Wind Turbine Systems" to better align with the content of our paper.

Comment 2: **Lines 20-21:** I noticed that the current developments in offshore wind farms in China and the US might not be fully captured in this section. It would be beneficial to revisit and update this information to reflect the latest advancements.

Response 2: We acknowledge the dynamic nature of the offshore wind energy landscape, particularly in regions such as China and the US. To ensure our manuscript reflects the latest advancements, we have included a new paragraph in the introduction to reflect the recent progress in floating offshore wind farms worldwide.

Comment 3: **Figure 1 and Subsequent Figures:** It appears that the plots might have been sourced from NREL. To ensure proper attribution, could you consider modifying the caption to "Adapted from NREL" or a similar acknowledgment?

Response 3: We appreciate your attention to detail regarding figure attribution. While the plots have been sourced from specific papers, we have ensured that each figure caption explicitly acknowledges the source, providing proper attribution.

Comment 4: **Resolution of Figures:** The resolution of Figure 1 and other related figures seems to be on the lower side, which might affect the clarity for readers. If possible, kindly enhance the image quality for better readability.

Response 4: Your observation on the resolution of figures is valuable. In response, we have taken steps to enhance the image quality of Figure 1 and related figures, aiming to improve readability for the readers.

Comment 5: **Scope of Tools:** The study predominantly discusses tools available for horizontal axis wind turbines. Given that the title does not specify HAWT, it would be enriching to also touch upon or at least discuss about vertical axis wind turbines. I recommend referring to the recent advancements in this area, such as the work by "Gharaati, M., Xiao, S., Wei, N. J., Martínez-Tossas, L. A., Dabiri, J. O., & Yang, D. (2022). Large-eddy simulation of helical-and straight-bladed vertical-axis wind turbines in boundary layer turbulence. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 14(5)."

Response 5: We sincerely thank you for highlighting the potential enrichment of our study by including a discussion on vertical axis wind turbines. However, it is worth noting that our survey focuses specifically on floating offshore wind turbines, which predominantly employ horizontal axis wind turbines. Based on current knowledge, this remains the prevailing technology in this domain, aligning with our scope.

Comment 6: **Line 399:** There seems to be a typographical error with the term "turbinre concept." Could you please review and rectify this?

Response 6: We apologize for the typographical error in Line 399. This has been rectified in the revised manuscript.

Comment 7: **Table 1:** I observed that some words are extending beyond the table boundaries. Adjusting the table formatting should address this issue.

Response 7: We are grateful for your keen observation. In response, we have meticulously adjusted the table formatting to ensure that no words extend beyond the table boundaries.

Final Comment: I hope these suggestions prove helpful in refining your manuscript. I appreciate the effort and research that has gone into this work, and I look forward to seeing the final version.

Response: We genuinely value your feedback and believe that these enhancements have strengthened the clarity and accuracy of our manuscript. We look forward to your further insights and are eager to present the final version of our work.

*************************************************************************************

Reviewer 2:

A variety of numerical tools have been developed to simulate dynamics of FOWTs and related phenomena. The study presented focuses on a survey of numerical tools available for simulating FOWTs, assessing their capabilities and limitations.

 The subject matter of the paper maybe of minor interest to readers of the journal, but unfortunately, the paper presents nothing of novelty or originality that is worthy of publication. The novelty of the research component is not well articulated in the text. The paper lacks detailed description of numerical methods developed in various tools. Therefore, outcomes of the study and its contents are inconsistent. Comparison of software tools in terms of their performance, computational efficiency and accuracy is missing.

The abstract of the paper should be entirely re-written. It should be more informative for the reader. Aim and objectives of the paper should be clearly identified. Introductory section could be significantly improved giving critical analysis of the available methods and results. Conclusions are too general and could be more specific in order to demonstrate the principal authors’ achievements and findings. It is necessary to highlight the authors' contribution to the field (new results, new methods, etc.).

Response:

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and providing us with your valuable feedback. Your comments are important to us, and we are committed to addressing them in order to enhance the quality and clarity of our paper.

While we highly value your suggestions for improvement in the abstract, introduction, and conclusions, it is worth noting that other reviewers have expressed satisfaction with the content and material of our paper. This makes it a bit challenging to consider a complete overhaul of these sections, as it may potentially contradict the overall scope and focus of our study.

It is imperative to clarify that our paper is not designed as a review article introducing novel methods, but rather serves as a comprehensive survey of existing simulation tools, as indicated by the title. As a review paper, it is not anticipated to present groundbreaking scientific or technical concepts.

We genuinely appreciate your valuable insights and remain open to further discussion on any specific points you believe warrant additional attention.

*************************************************************************************

Reviewer 3:

The paper consists of a summary of prominent numerical tools and codes that are typically used in both research and industry.

Reviewer's Comment: In essence, the article is a review of these existing codes which however does not subscribe to what would be expected with a proper academic literature review. The article feels more like a summary rather than a critical review.

Response: We greatly appreciate the reviewer's thoughtful assessment. As indicated by the title of our paper, our aim was to provide a comprehensive overview of existing simulation tool packages commonly employed in Offshore Wind Energy (OWE) projects led by IEA. The intent was to offer readers a broad understanding of these packages' capabilities and underlying theories. This work was not designed to critically evaluate them or delve into their specific strengths and weaknesses.

Reviewer's Comment: Also, the paper has been submitted as an article but to this reviewer, this would have been more appropriate as a review article.

Response: We acknowledge the oversight in categorizing our submission. We kindly request, upon resubmission, that the associate editor consider reevaluating the paper's categorization and, if deemed more appropriate, reclassify it as a review article.

Reviewer's Comment: The codes mentioned are all mainstream codes that have been used by various groups. Nevertheless it would have been also useful to refer to other types of codes and models that have been used by numerous authors. For example, various approaches with CFD codes have been utilized to study both coupled and de-coupled scenarios. These models have been developed in both commercial and non-commercial CFD codes.

Response: As previously mentioned, our objective was to provide readers with a comprehensive overview of existing simulation tool packages dedicated to independently simulating and analyzing floating offshore wind turbines. We aimed to cover the three primary modules: structural, aerodynamic, and hydrodynamic. In future work, we plan to conduct a thorough review of the aerodynamic module, including an in-depth exploration of critical tools such as CFD codes, as highlighted by the reviewer.

Reviewer's Comment: The discussion section is interesting but the paper’s primary focus is in providing a brief summary of codes which readers could easily refer to in other literature. As such the usefulness of the article becomes questionable and does not add much to what already exists albeit in separate papers.

Reviewer's Comment: A review article is usually more ambitious and should try to pave the way for future research directions. This key feature is not found in this article.

Response: As previously outlined, our primary aim in this paper was to offer a thorough compilation of existing simulation tool packages capable of independently simulating and analyzing floating offshore wind turbines. By consolidating this information, we aimed to provide a valuable resource for future researchers seeking a comprehensive understanding of available options. This, in turn, enables them to streamline their focus towards reviewing the most pertinent literature, specifically related to the tools relevant to their work.

*************************************************************************************

Reviewer 4:

In this work, a survey of numerical methods with the primary objective of evaluating and comparing various simulation tools for FOWTs (Floating Of Shore Wind Turbines) have been conducted.

Authors have comprehensively covered the numerical simulation tools that have participated in the Offshore Code Comparison (OC) projects.

The introduction provides sufficient background while including relevant references.

The survey approach is appropriate and well structured.

Survey approach covered various simulation tools for FOWTs which are briefly but adequately described.

The conclusion is well supported by the survey content presented.

Response:

We deeply appreciate your meticulous review and constructive feedback on our paper. Your positive assessment is invaluable to us. Your recognition of the comprehensiveness and structure of our survey on numerical methods for Floating Offshore Wind Turbines (FOWTs), including the coverage of simulation tools in the Offshore Code Comparison (OC) projects, is particularly encouraging.

We are also heartened by your positive remarks on the introduction, highlighting its well-researched background and references. Your affirmation of the appropriateness of the survey approach and the clarity of descriptions for various simulation tools for FOWTs is greatly appreciated. Moreover, your acknowledgment of the conclusion's robust support from the survey content is particularly gratifying.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Unfortunately, I can't see any improvements in comparison with the original submission. To my opinion, authors' approach to the paper revising is unsatisfactory.

Author Response

Reviewer Comment:

Unfortunately, I can't see any improvements in comparison with the original submission. To my opinion, authors' approach to the paper revising is unsatisfactory.

Response:

Dear Reviewer,

We deeply appreciate your thorough examination of our paper, "A Survey of Numerical Simulation Tools for Offshore Wind Turbine Systems," and we are grateful for your constructive feedback.

Addressing your initial concerns, we have made substantial revisions to the abstract (Page 1, Lines 1 to 15). We have provided a more detailed account of the aims and principal contributions of our study, ensuring it serves as a comprehensive overview for the reader. Additionally, in the introduction section, we have restructured the last paragraph to enhance the critical analysis of available methods and results (Pages 2 and 3, Lines 65 to 78). We believe these changes have significantly improved the clarity and coherence of our paper.

Furthermore, we have taken to heart your suggestion to include a detailed description of the numerical methods employed in various tools (Pages 3, 4 and 5, Lines 79 to 182). This addition serves to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the methodologies underpinning our survey. Moreover, we have enriched the conclusion section (Pages 16 and 17, Lines 627 to 658) by exploring various approaches for the four primary components of numerical simulation tools in floating offshore wind turbines. This involved a thorough evaluation of their capabilities, computational efficiency, and accuracy, culminating in a well-rounded assessment of the tools discussed in our paper.

In response to your second set of comments, we regret that our revisions did not meet your expectations. We have carefully considered your feedback and have endeavoured to make the necessary improvements. If there are specific areas where you believe further enhancements are needed, we would be grateful for your guidance. We are committed to ensuring that our work meets the high standards of the journal.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

N/A

Author Response

Reviewer Comment:

N/A

Response:

Dear Reviewer,

We greatly appreciate your continued evaluation of our paper, "A Survey of Numerical Simulation Tools for Offshore Wind Turbine Systems," and we are thankful for your constructive feedback.

Addressing your initial concerns, we have implemented substantial revisions, particularly in the abstract (Page 1, Lines 1 to 15). We now provide a more detailed account of the aims and principal contributions of our study, ensuring it serves as a comprehensive overview for the reader. Additionally, in the introduction section, we have restructured the last paragraph to enhance the critical analysis of available methods and results (Pages 2 and 3, Lines 65 to 78). We believe these changes have significantly improved the clarity and coherence of our paper. Furthermore, we have included a detailed description of the numerical methods employed in various tools (Pages 3, 4, and 5, Lines 79 to 182). This addition aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the methodologies underpinning our survey. Moreover, we have enriched the conclusion section (Pages 16 and 17, Lines 627 to 658) by exploring various approaches for the four primary components of numerical simulation tools in floating offshore wind turbines. This involved a thorough evaluation of their capabilities, computational efficiency, and accuracy, culminating in a well-rounded assessment of the tools discussed in our paper.

We regret that our revisions did not meet your expectations in the first round and since we did not receive further comment and feedback, upon our re-submission we have carefully considered your initial feedback and have endeavoured to make the necessary improvements. If there are specific areas where you believe further enhancements are needed, we would be grateful for your guidance. We are committed to ensuring that our work meets the high standards of the journal.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript was updated, and part of the text was rewritten.