Analysis of Eight Types of Floating Wind Turbines at Constant Wind Speed

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See comments attached/

Needs major revision

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please refer to the attached word file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates the response offset of floating wind turbine under different wind, wave and current velocities. However, the article likes a technical report which is not a scientific paper. I propose to reject this manuscript for publication, and some suggestions are presented as below:

1. In Abstract section, there is a lack of quantitative research results and explanations of technical methods.
2. The Introduction is too long, and some paragraphs of the Introduction can be reduced. Furthermore, the English writing of Introduction is very poor, and many references are simply listed.
3. Many similar figures and tables have been presented in the Introduction section, which can be deleted.
4. There is no Conclusion section.
5. Line 276 “Sima”, and Line 279 “SIMA”, which must be unified.
6. The English writing is poor, liking line 322“CSC Surge offset is 1.5-11.74-4.4 m for wind speeds 4-11.4-24 m/s respectively.”
7. Like the Table 9 and Figure 10, they are some data. I think that only figure is ok and the table can be deleted.
8. Line 330 “10 MW Surge graph representing the data presented in Table 2” is mistake. It must be Table 9.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English writing must be improved.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached word file

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a systematic analysis of eight floating wind turbines (FWTs) under combined environmental loads, addressing a critical area in offshore renewable energy. While the study demonstrates technical competence in simulating dynamic responses across multiple degrees of freedom, several shortcomings must be addressed to enhance its scientific rigor and impact. Below is a prioritized list of concerns requiring revision:

1- The numerical models lack validation against experimental or field data, undermining confidence in the simulation results. Without quantifiable benchmarks, the accuracy of SIMA 4.6.4 predictions remains unverified, particularly under extreme wave‒current interactions.

2- The discussion fails to elucidate the hydrodynamic and aerodynamic coupling mechanisms driving response offsets. For example, vortex-induced motions (VIM) and wave-frequency resonance effects are mentioned but not correlated with observed offsets in pitch/roll motions.

3- Critical parameters such as wave period dispersion, current profile variability, and mooring line stiffness are not systematically varied. This omission precludes the identification of dominant failure modes under realistic, irregular sea states.

4- Comparisons to external studies are cursorily mentioned but not quantitatively presented. Without tabular contrasts in response amplitudes under matching environmental conditions, the added value of this study remains unclear.

5- Nonlinear effects such as viscous damping saturation, mooring line slackening, and second-order wave forces are not addressed. These phenomena could significantly impact extreme response predictions for survival analysis.

6- While dynamic offsets are quantified, their cumulative damage potential is not evaluated. The incorporation of rainflow cycle counting or Miner's rule would strengthen the engineering relevance for long-term structural integrity. The authors are strongly advised to address these shortcomings to strengthen the study's contribution to the field and foster greater confidence in its conclusions.

7- Time-series plots and spectral density functions are absent, limiting insight into the transient response characteristics. Three-dimensional motion trajectories can better illustrate coupled surge–heave–pitch interactions.

8- Technical terms (e.g., "mean drift forces" vs. "low-frequency excitation") are used interchangeably. The figure axes lack directional indicators (e.g., positive surge direction), and unit consistency (metric vs. imperial) is compromised in several tables.

9- In addition, the authors are advised to implement model calibration using open-source experimental datasets (e.g., MARIN's FWT model tests) and introduce a probabilistic framework to quantify uncertainty in environmental load parameterization. The authors should also expand the discussion to include economic implications of response mitigation strategies and add a dedicated section correlating numerical results with IEC 61400-3 design standards.

The above-mentioned concerns have the potential to impact the reliability and accuracy of the findings presented and the overall acceptance of the paper, and thus, it is imperative to address them thoroughly and in detail.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached word file

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been carefully revised, some suggestion are given as follows:

1. Tables 1 to 9 can be improved and revised to the multi-columns tables.
2. “8 Floating Wind Turbine Types” in the title can be changed to “eight types of Floating Wind Turbines”.

Author Response

Comment 1: Tables 1 to 9 can be improved and revised to the multi-columns tables.

Response 1: Yes but I think that reducing the number of the tables and considering a lot of information in a less number of tables will make the tables more complicated and less understandable. So I think that from my point of view, one table for one floating wind turbine is the best choice for a clear understanding of the results

Comment 2: “8 Floating Wind Turbine Types” in the title can be changed to “eight types of Floating Wind Turbines”.

 

Response 2: I have modified the title as was requested

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the authors have made efforts to address the reviewers' comments, they should provide a concise explanation regarding their considerations for unresolved issues or outline specific plans for future investigations. Merely citing time constraints ('The editor office has urged me to submit the paper as soon as possible and considering all the mentioned aspects will take me too much time which I do not have') as a justification for incomplete responses does not reflect a rigorous academic mindset. Scholarly work demands thorough engagement with feedback rather than expedient compliance.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached word file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf