Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an interesting paper concerning a hybrid RANS/BEM methodology for examining the hull/propeller interaction at off–design conditions and its experimental validation. Specific comments are listed below.

 

1. It is advised to add a detailed schematic figure for experimental setup including the borescopic SPIV system besides the citation of the previous papers.

 

2. It is advised to use the more formal term “borescope” rather than “boroscope.”

 

3. Page 8, Line 275: “50 pixels” è “50%”

 

4. How many SPIV instantaneous realizations (vector maps) were used to calculate the mean velocity distributions such as Figs. 4-6 & 8-11? Please specify.

 

5. Can the authors clearly explain why the numerical simulations didn’t use the same shaft geometry (Page 10, Line 344) and the same β (Page 11, Line 362) as that of the experiment? It is pretty odd to use the proposed numerical methodology to simulate cases of different geometry and condition from that of the validation experiment!

 

6. Figs. 5, 6, 10, 11: the drift angle is denoted as “β”, not “θ.”

 

7. Page 11, Line 353：It doesn’t seem to exhibit a peak at θ~40^○ in Fig. 7.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The overall idea is good and the results are valid. The authors may consider the following points when revising their manuscript:

1. Abstract is a bit lengthy. It should describe the essential work.
2. The first sentence is problematic "The propeller performances are strongly influenced by the working conditions  during the manoeuvre. In this condition ..." What kind of "manoeuvre" does it refer to? What does is mean "this condition"? Actually, when reading the Abstract, "The behavior of the propulsion system of a ship can be markedly altered during realistic and off–design conditions experienced during operation at sea ..." My impression is the subject is the propulsive performance of a ship at sea, however, the first sentence tells something about interaction between propeller action and manoeuvering.
3. Overall, the submitted work reports the calibration and validation of a numerical method, against the experimental results. The Conclusion part summarizes very well the work. However, the Abstract and Introduction sections might need some polishing, so that the concept can be concisely described. 
4. Last but not least, though the methodology and presented results are pretty good, it does not harm much to have a look of the works of the peers. The authors cited too many of their own works, which is beyond the healthy range. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper uses an interactive RANS/BEM method to solve the flow around the hull with Navier-Stokes equations and the propeller with a boundary method and validates the results with experimental data.

It seems that the authors used a previously developed code as a framework and performed validations. The validations show promising results; however, it is not clear what is the novelty of the work. Therefore, I do not find the manuscript appropriate to be published in JMSE.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Would 400 instantaneous realizations be enough to be used to obtain a converged mean velocity distribution? Please add some words in the text to elaborate on this issue.