Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is of very high quality. The subject matter is very important and topical. The literature review is very good. It does not raise any major objections. The summary does not require major corrections, it was possible to articulate the purpose of the work more clearly. It is not a necessity. The introduction is concise and clear. The remaining chapters from the broadcasting part and the results are very good. I do not see any major substantive errors. Such analyzes are very difficult and very extensive. the authors coped with them very well. I don't see any major shortcomings in terms of values. It can be said that the analyzes performed are very good. The variety of results gives a great view on the subject. The results are very extensive. The conclusions are concrete and their quality is very significant. The rest of the graphics, drawings and tables are correct. It should be recognized that the work does not require any corrections. Admittedly, the authors made a great contribution to science.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your hard work in reviewing the manuscript.

An English spelling check was conducted as a whole.

And we faithfully corrected the points pointed out by other reviewers.

Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with the simulation of silencers for marine engines. The paper is well written, some comments need to be clarified in the manuscript:

• More Keywords can be added
• The authors can add a paragraph at the beginning of the introduction to describe the components of the after-treatment system and silencer before beginning the literature review.
• The authors can describe in more detailed the novelty of the work.
• What is the relation of the computed noise with the standard international regulations?
• The authors focus on the silencer, however, what is the relation between noise reduction and emission reduction.
• What is the optimum design of the system from your calculations from point of view of structure, noise and emission reduction?
• The authors can mention the simulation time and the characteristics of the pc used.
• Typos:
  • Spaces in the first and second lines before the abbreviation in the introduction.
  • The authors can remove etc among the manuscript and write what they exactly need.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for pointing it out in detail. We have faithfully corrected the points pointed out, and we will respond as follows.

1. More Keywords can be added

- Added ‘noise reduction’ and ‘sulfur oxides’ to keywords

2. The authors can add a paragraph at the beginning of the introduction to describe the components of the after-treatment system and silencer before beginning the literature review.

- Added a description of the composition of the wet scrubber and silencer in the introduction.

3. The authors can describe in more detailed the novelty of the work.

- Added the need for research to the introduction.

4. What is the relation of the computed noise with the standard international regulations?

- There are noise-related safety regulations on the inside of the cabin, but there are no international regulations on exhaust noise. Related content, the need for noise reduction, and the need for related research have been added to the introduction.

5. The authors focus on the silencer, however, what is the relation between noise reduction and emission reduction.

What is the optimum design of the system from your calculations from point of view of structure, noise and emission reduction?

- At the end of the introduction, the selection standard for the optimal shape were explained, and in the conclusion part, one case was selected as the optimal shape.

6. The authors can mention the simulation time and the characteristics of the pc used.

- On page 10, the CPU used for the analysis and the time taken for the analysis per case have been added.

7. Typos:

Spaces in the first and second lines before the abbreviation in the introduction.

- Overall, the typo was checked.

8. The authors can remove etc among the manuscript and write what they exactly need.

- ‘Etc’ has been removed and clearly modified.

Above, we have made corrections to the points pointed out.

Thank you.