Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper illustrates application of a local dynamics model of large eddy simulation to a marine propeller wake. Overall, the paper presents interesting findings, but I have a few comments for improvement:

1- Please enhance the literature review section by including more extensive coverage of experimental works related to marine propellers. This will provide a stronger foundation for your research and help readers understand the context and relevance of your study.

2- In order to maintain consistency in your formulation, I recommend revising equation 1 (line 36) to employ tensor notation, aligning it with equations 2 and 3. This consistency will improve the clarity and cohesiveness of your mathematical presentation.

3- For better readability, consider replacing the bullet points (line 133-140) with continuous text. This will create a smoother flow of information and make it easier for readers to follow your arguments and insights.

4- I suggest tabulating the data presented in lines 324-355. By organising the information into a table format, you will enhance its readability and facilitate a clearer understanding of the results for your readers.

5- To provide a more comprehensive analysis, it would be beneficial to include a full comparison between LES-LDKSGS and LES-DASGS for mean square velocity fluctuations in different directions. You can refer to [26] for guidance on how to perform this comparison. Including this comparison will strengthen your conclusions and provide a more robust evaluation of the proposed models.

Author Response

Many thanks for reviewers' helpful comments. The responses to the reviewer's comments can be found in the attachment. Please check it.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript deals with the extensive LES and RANS simulation of the water flow through a marine propeller. For LES, the dynamic k-equation SGS model is used, which is shown to be somewhat more accurate than the dynamic Smagorinsky model. The manuscript fits the scope of Applied Sciences and could be considered for publication after major revision. My detailed comments are given below.

(1) The literature review is weak and insufficient despite commendable historical excursion. There are many topical publications on RANS and LES studies of water flow through marine propellers of the various types, but the authors do not mention any. The authors must show the way other researchers attack the same problem and discuss all pros and cons of the known and proposed approaches. 

(2) The manuscript abounds in abbreviations: a list of abbreviation is needed.

(3) The manuscript abounds in designations: a list nomenclature is needed. What is lambda_2 in Figure 14?

(4) The mesh sensitivity study is missing. Is there any negative effect of the unstructured mesh used as compared to the structured one?

(5) It would be instructive if the authors indicate the scatter/error for the measured and calculated values of thrust and torque coefficients in Table 3.

(6) It is not clear what is the source (reference) for the PIV data in Section 3.3. What is the measurement error?

(7) In some figures, like Figs. 9-12, it is not clear which of multiple cases 1 to 42 are considered.

(8) The caption for the last figure (likely, Figure 14) is in the wrong place.

(9) In the conclusions, the authors did not clearly emphasize the novelties and strengths of their study.

Author Response

Many thanks for reviewers' helpful comments. The responses to the reviewer's comments can be found in the attachment. Please check it.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all my comments properly. The manuscript could be considered now for publication in Applied Sciences.