Effects of Leading-Edge Tubercles on Three-Dimensional Flapping Foils
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has good idea on presenting novelties, but it is missing crucial information on the methodology. The following remarks should be looked into and the manuscript should be improved accordingly:
- Mesh uncertainty should be better explained, or even better it can be reported according to one of the standard methods, e.g. 10.1115/1.2960953
- All figures and their descriptions should add Reynolds numbers, because it is hard to readers to find information on simulations.
- Captions of figures are not informative in general. Please be specific on the information they show, and why it is important.
- There is one cited paper on cavitation but no mention on the cavitation and ventilation effects for the simulated Re numbers. Ventilation is one of important aspects as well (e.g. 10.1080/09377255.2020.1798060). Please add information on why you haven't inspected ventilation and cavitation.
- There is no mention on y+ and CFL values. The authors should connect those information with time-steps they have mentioned throughout the paper.
- How are residuals of the simulation looking? They should be shown and explained, because the foil ends in sharp edges which quite probably create unsteady residuals.
The language is okay, it requires only minor improvements.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors presented a numerical study on the Effects of leading-edge tubercles on three-dimensional flapping foils. The paper is generally well prepared, has good scientific soundness and can be accepted for publication after addressing the following points:
The main quantitative results are to be mentioned in the abstract.
The novelty of the paper is to be clearly stated.
The solved governing equations are to be presented.
The boundary conditions are to be expressed mathematically.
The used turbulence model is to be justified.
The dimensions of the computational domain are to be justified.
In addition to the presented validation, a qualitative (2D profile) verification of the numerical model is to be performed by comparing with previously published numerical results.
What is the convergence criterion?
Information about the characteristics of the used computer and computational time are to be provided.
The paper is to be checked for misprints and grammatical mistakes.
The paper is to be checked for misprints and grammatical mistakes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please refer to my attached report.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Please refer to my attached report.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have improved the manuscript as requested.
The written language is okay
Author Response
Thanks for your review. It made this article better.
Reviewer 3 Report
I am not satisfied with the revision performed by the authors. They seem to have ignored the final three points raised in my prior comments, completely. These deal with the uncertainties in the simulations, the prior work of Dr Stanway, and the presentation. I am attaching the comments and hope that the authors can address all of them in their revision.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Please refer to my attached report.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
I am satisfied with the revision made by the authors. They have addressed my concerns in letter and in spirit. I recommend publication of the manuscript, in its current state.
