Structural Stability Analysis of Underwater High-Speed Moving Vehicles in Supercavity Flow Velocity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See file attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present study investigates the structural stability of an underwater high-speed vehicle. The vehicle was simplified into a cantilever-type model. Based on the numerical investigations, a design guideline was proposed: instability appears as the center of gravity moves from the center to both ends. This study has a value in industrial high-speed underwater vehicle applications. The paper is well prepared and the results were clearly given. However, I think the quality of the paper should be improved by implementing the below comments, then, my recommendation is to accept the paper.

Limited number of studies were listed in the Introduction section and the limitation of these studies were defined in one sentence. I propose specifying the novelty of the present study more clearly, it is missing in the existing version of the paper.

The effect of the dimensionless elastic modulus and location of the intermediate support, and internal damping on flutter-type instability were investigated and presented in section 3. But this section lacks of scientific discussion. The present version of the paper seems to be a technical report rather than a scientific paper. Please add more technical discussions by giving references to the literature.

There are some typos or unnecessary sentences;

 -Page 1, Line 29: “..the maximum underwater speed reached 100 m/s.” should be “the maximum underwater speed reached up to 100 m/s.”

-Page 6, Line 170: The sentence starts from “In addition, in this study, the length of the beam was obtained by dividing it into ….” has to be rewritten. I think the new sentence should be like this: “In addition, in this study, the length of the beam was obtained by dividing it into 20 finite elements, and to verify the validity of the numerical solution, the result (? = 20.052) of reference [10], which did not consider the intermediate support point in Beck's Beam on an elastic foundation, was used and it can be confirmed that the result (? = 20.054) obtained in this study has an error of 0.0001%.

-Page 10, Line 264: “Through the above analysis results, it was found that structural instability transitions (flutter divergence) near the center of the beam.” Add a verb to this sentence.

-Page 15, Line 406: “It was modeled using the conditions given above”. Please delete this sentence since it is specified in the previous sentence.

-Page 15, Line 438: “Important facts can be derived”. Please delete this sentence.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please see the above comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The influence of parameter k1 on the dynamic behavior of the body is not evident from the theoretical model: is it present in equations (1)-(6)? A wide discussion about the role of this parameter and its inflence on the theoretical equations of motion is suggested. 

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive feedback on our manuscript. 

There was an error in equation 7 as pointed out by the reviewer, so it was corrected as follows and a detailed explanation was added.

We deeply appreciate Reviewer's thorough review and effort.