Characterization of Aeroelastic Behavior in a High Aspect Ratio Wing Using Computational and Wind Tunnel Experiments
, Jose M. Balthazar 2,3, Roberto G. A. da Silva 1, Mauricio A. Ribeiro 3 and Angelo M. Tusset 3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see comments and suggestions in attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewers for spending their time in reading, reviewing, and commenting on our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript to a better scientific level.
We have studied the raised comments carefully and made corrections, which we hope meet your requirements. Please, consider the reviewers' comments in black, the authors' answers in blue, and the changes made to the paper in red.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, the article provides a good overview of the objective, methodology, and results of the study on characterizing an aeroelastic system. However, there are some areas that could be improved and clarified to enhance the readability and scientific rigor of the article. Here are some specific comments and suggestions:
1. Title and Objective: The title of the article should be more specific and descriptive. It should clearly state what the study is about, such as "Characterization of Aeroelastic Behavior in a High Aspect Ratio Wing Using Computational and Wind Tunnel Experiments." The objective statement can also be more concise and to the point.
2. Introduction: The introduction should provide more context and background information on aeroelasticity, high aspect ratio wings, and dynamic stall. It should also clearly state the motivation behind the study and why characterizing the aeroelastic behavior is important.
3. Methodology: The article briefly mentions the "traditional attractor reconstruction and Lyapunov exponent calculation compared with 0-1 test." This part needs to be expanded to explain the methodologies in more detail. Also, the use of dynamic stall correction methods should be explained earlier in the article, as it appears in the "Post Flutter Analysis" section without prior explanation.
4. Usually the nonlinear beam model is used when analyzing the rotor blade. Equations (6) and (7) in this article is a simple 2DOF model. How can this model correctly simulate complex aeroelasticity conditions.
5. Results and Discussion: The results section should be presented with more structure. It could be divided into subsections based on the different flow velocities being analyzed, i.e., "Results for Velocities Before Flutter," "Results for Flutter Velocity," and "Results for Velocities Post Flutter." This would make it easier for readers to follow the findings for each specific case.
6. ONERA, the French Aerospace Lab has done many wind tunnel tests of nonlinear rotor blade, including dynamic stall. Please explain the difference between the experimental results of this laboratory and the problem you are currently discussing.
7. Discussion of Findings: The article mentions some results, such as negative Lyapunov exponents indicating quasi-periodic behavior, but it lacks a deeper analysis and interpretation of the significance of these findings. The discussion should elaborate on the implications of the results and their relevance to aeroelastic design and safety.
8. Conclusions: The conclusions should provide a concise summary of the key findings and their practical implications. It should also highlight any limitations of the study and suggest areas for future research.
9. Clarity and Language: Some sentences are a bit convoluted and can be rephrased for clarity. Additionally, proofreading for grammar and punctuation errors is necessary to improve the overall language quality of the article.
10. Additional Details: The article could benefit from including more technical details on the computational experiments, the wind tunnel setup, and the specific parameters used in the simulations. This would help readers understand the experimental setup better.
In summary, the article has a solid foundation, but it needs some refinement to provide a clearer and more comprehensive presentation of the research findings. Adding more detail to the methodologies, results, and discussions will enhance the overall quality and impact of the article.
Some sentences are a bit convoluted and can be rephrased for clarity. Additionally, proofreading for grammar and punctuation errors is necessary to improve the overall language quality of the article.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewers for spending their time in reading, reviewing, and commenting on our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript to a better scientific level.
We have studied the raised comments carefully and made corrections, which we hope meet your requirements. Please, consider the reviewers' comments in black, the authors' answers in blue, and the changes made to the paper in red.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have implemented all my comments and suggestions. We recommend this paper for possible publication in Axioms.
Reviewer 2 Report
The author has answered my question and I have no more questions.
