Two-Dimensional Free-Surface Flow Modeling for Wave-Structure Interactions and Induced Motions of Floating Bodies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is about a very interesting topic "A Multiphase Free-Surface Flow Modelling for Wave-Structure Interactions and Induced Motions of Floating Bodies". Different cases have been tested and checked with other researches results as is the case of: Flow passing through a cylinder, Two cylinders moving against each other in viscous fluid, Dam-break problems, Wave decomposition process over a trapezoid breakwater, etc. My main concerns about the paper are: 1) scarce number of references given the high impact of the topic and the papers writen about it, 2) the state of the art has to be improved, 3) the results exposition has to be improved, taking more care of the figures and the description text, 4) the conclusion section has to be rewriteen with more information about the validity of the method.
Author Response
Please find a point-by-point response as attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this study, the authors presented a solution with the use of a combined LS and IB approach based on Navier-Stokes equations to assess the complex viscous free surface flow problems. The paper is well-written and the English language is OK. Some points needs to be Corrected/Addressed/Clarified before publication.
-The result is abstract is too general, please add more details.
-In abstract and title please mention, your study is conducted in CFD and 2D model.
-Please clear the word "efficiency" line 72, 73 and refer to more details.
-In line 262-270, what is the logic behind selection these cases?
-In line 274, please define all parameters in Re number equation.
-In fig 4, please clear x,y Axis and the colors range for each parameter.
-Numbers are not clear in most of the figures, e.g. figure 7 and 8. (generally the figures sizes and fonts are not matched to each other. please make them uniform)
-Figures 12, 13 are not readable. (I recommend regenerate all the low quality figures)
-Authors presented the result related to the accuracy of the proposed model and compared them with other models, first, for validating the accuracy I recommend to use most recent published papers.Second, Apart from accuracy, the advantage of this model which is the goal of this paper should be discussed and presented more with acceptable result compared to the others.
-Please add "Nomenclature" to the article
Author Response
Please find a point-by-point response as attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Major suggestions:
(1) It is misleading with the Title and Abstract in its present form. Your model is 2D and laminar! I found this out very late. Please modify your Title and Abstract to reflect the fact that the model is 2D and laminar.
(2) It is also misleading in using the term "multiphase" as the term normally refers to true mixing of multiphases with each phase having its own NS equations (mass and momentum). True multiphase has the phase concentration continuous between 0 and 1. Yours are a special case that intends to simulate the interfaces. I recommend to drop "multiphase" in the title and modify the term accordingly in the manuscript.
(3) Sorry to say that there are no new contributions to the CFD community as all techniques have already been published in the past. It is merely a combination of multiple existing CFD techniques and implemented in a 2D laminar flow framework. I wonder why not to use existing models such as REEF3D and Flow3D, which are much more advanced and for 3D turbulent flows already.
Minor Edits:
(1) L37-38: Three methods are mentioned herein, but only Eulerian method is described later. Please briefly describe the other two methods. Further, it is important to discuss the pros and cons of each method.
(2) L40-41: Eliminate your statement that "without loss of accuracy" as it is untrue. Large errors may be introduced due to the representation of the immersed body and the design of the body force. ALE method is more accurate but ALE may fail when mesh is deformed too much.
(3) L70: This is the opportunity to rewire clearly what's the new contributions of the present study.
(4) L168-169: Numbering is wrong here.
(5) L198: Please describe the discretization of L()
(6) L321: Please explain the high pressure (red spot) near the exit of the model in Figure 4b. What is causing it?
(7) L334-335: Please list the equation used to compute the CFL as it is not straightforward with the NS equation system.
(8) L387: The flow is turbulent with this high Reynolds! How can one trust your laminar results here?
(9) L407: Can you say more about the results of Flow3D? Is it a turbulent simulation? Results between yours and Flow3D are not small (e.g., Fig 13b), can you explain them?
(10) L512: Please move Fig. 17 down after Section 3.4.
(11) L524: Can you put the value of the wavelength in a bracket?
(12) L600: "Section 6.5"?
The paper has no new contributions to the CFD community as all techniques have already been published in the past. It is merely a combination of multiple existing CFD techniques and implemented in a 2D laminar flow framework. I wonder why not to use existing models such as REEF3D and Flow3D, which are much more advanced and for 3D turbulent flows already.
Author Response
Please find a point-by-point response as attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for trying to include my comments to improve the paper. Anyway, the number of references are still scarce, and also the state of the art should be deeply analyzed.
Author Response
Thank you so much.
We have cited 47 Refs in the manuscript and described the details of numerical simulation.
We also have corrected/addressed/clarified several points as suggested by the three reviewers.
Reviewer 2 Report
In revised version of the manuscript, the authors addressed my concerns and questions carefully. The paper can be published after miner revision as below:
-The figures look better in compared to the first version but have to be uniform. (Sizes of the figures and the values in X and Y axes)
-Please fix the typo in line 390.
Author Response
Thank you so much.
We have corrected/addressed several points (typo and figure size) as suggested by the reviewer.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for responding to my reviews. I am satisfied with the revision except that:
(1) In the Abstract, it should be mentioned that it is for laminar flow!
(2) The definition of the CFL number is for 1D. Can you describe how it is computed with your 2D model?
Author Response
Thank you so much.
We have corrected/addressed two points as suggested by the reviewer.
Please see the Line 19 and 378 in the manuscript.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I have the same comments as in my previous review report. Some improvements have been carried out, but not enough.
Author Response
The writers gratefully acknowledge the comments and suggestions provided from the reviewer. Please find the rebuttal letter as attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
