Fully Coupled Analysis of a 10 MW Floating Wind Turbine Integrated with Multiple Wave Energy Converters for Joint Wind and Wave Utilization
, Yi Yang 4, Shi Liu 4, Jiang Deng 2 and Mingsheng Chen 2,3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made a good effort in analyzing and writing the manuscript. However, there are many problems in the manuscript that need to be revised as follows:
1. A comparative study of the systems with existing works should be included.
2. What are the challenges of wind energy conversion systems in harsh sea conditions?
3. Also, the problems of the transmission energy generated by the floating WT should be addressed in the revised paper
4. Could the presented work assess the scalability of the integrated system when applied to larger arrays of turbines with varying capacities?
5. The paper doesn't delve into mooring system optimization. Would it be possible to explore potential optimization methods in future research?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageA second revision of the whole paper is mandatory to correct some typos.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic chosen by the Authors is important and interesting. It perfectly fits within the scope of the journal. However, the paper contains some issues that should be addressed.
1. Please, describe in more details the composition of the vector x (Eq. 8). Without that, variables x_3 and x_9 in (11) etc. look strange. Just a reference to [23] is not sufficient. Besides, does vector x include any variables describing the dynamics of the HAWT? What are these variables?
2. Please, describe in more details the relation between the 3 DoF model established in section 2 and the platform model (which, evidently, has more degrees of freedom) established in section 3. Moreover, it seems that equations from section 3 are never used in the subsequent text.
3. In section 3, the Authors provide values of parameters of the system, but no equations of motion are written down.
4. What is the difference between T and T_H (eq. 5 and below)?
5. Fig. 2-2 needs some additional comments: what does the medium curve (with the inscription l_0) mean? If l_0 is the length of the suspended section of the cable, one would expect that this curve would be parallel to the "lower" one. Please, reconsider the figure so that it would be more clear for the readers.
6. Please, describe in more details, how eq. 12 is used in this paper to replace the convolution term.
7. In table 7 a misprint: "Singel platform".
8. What means F^{est} in eq. 11? Is this F^{ext} from eq. 8?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have now addressed the comments. The paper can be Accepted from my side.
Author Response
The authors have now addressed the comments. The paper can be Accepted from this side.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Authors have significantly improved the paper. There only remain some minor issues:
Line 145: "omega" probably should be replaced with "w".
Formula 7: please, introduce the notations A and E. Are these cable cross-section area and Young's modulus?
Line 245: "Were, 𝑡𝑃 respresent time domain" - please, correct misprints.
The letter B is used to denote different quantities: B(omega) is a kernel in (16), B in (19) is the constant coefficient matrix, B_nu in (20) is the viscous damping matrix, and B^N_PTO in (21) is not described. This is not convenient for the reader.
What is the relation between the matrix C in (19) and the matrix C in (20)? Note that C in (20) is not described.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
