Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled “applsci-2248386” dealing with the numerical investigation has been reviewed. The paper has been nicely written but needs significant improvement. Please follow my comments.

 

 

1.     Add some quantitative results to the abstract.

2.     What is the main research question for this research work?

3.     What is the future direction of this work?

4.     Please proofread the text.

5.      Please expand the validation (section 3.3).

6.     Numerical methods are used in different fields. For instance, in the industry numerical methods are used for the modelling of additive manufacturing processes. Please read and add the following references in this area.

·       “The effect of absorption ratio on meltpool features in laser-based powder bed fusion of IN718”.

·       3D printing of bending-dominated soft lattices: numerical and experimental assessment

·       Numerical investigations on mechanical properties of bio-inspired 3D printed geometries using multi-jet fusion process

 

 

Author Response

Thanks for the very helpful suggestion. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The detailed comments are attached. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for the very helpful suggestion. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.DOC

Reviewer 3 Report

Li et al. research aims to provide a  better understanding of the mechanisms underlying landslide by simulating the submarine landslides’ transportation processes using the computational fluid dynamics. The manuscript can be reconsidered for publication after carefully addressing the following comments/suggestions:

1-     The English is weak and requires further improvement. Not only the gramma should be improved, but also the writing style. I suggest to have the manuscript read by a native speaker. You can also use the MDPI editing service.

2-     Lots of statements are remained uncited. For instance, chapter 2.

3-     Avoid bulk citation. For instance, chapter 3. The authors should only cite the papers that were used to develop the research.

4-     Again, all the equation should be properly cited.

5-     How did the authors obtained the range of parameters for the sensitivity analysis?

6-     The manuscript lacks a results and discussion section. All the results are reported. In chapter 5 “4. Numerical analyses”. I suggest to present the modeling outcomes in “Results” chapter, and then add another chapter “Discussion” to discuss the findings, the application in the field, and the significance of the outcomes.

7-     The conclusion chapter is rather short, and does not provide a detailed description of the outcomes. I suggest re-write it.

Author Response

Thanks for the very helpful suggestion. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is ready to go. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been improved significantly therefore, It can be accepted for publication in its present form. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript can be further considered for publication.