A Numerical Method on Large Roll Motion in Beam Seas Under Intact and Damaged Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- This is a meaningful paper to predict roll stability for intact and damaged conditions of tumblehome patrol boat.
- The author uses several methods to predict the stability like complicated but expensive, middle level and simple one. And they could conclude the middle level method is enough to predict the stability reasonably.
- The numerical results were well compared with the model test to validate the method.
- The paper can be improved if the causes of the results are represented.
- I left some comments on the manuscript using a red pen.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
There are some mistakes and awkward expressions in the viewpoint of English writing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNumerical simulations are very precise and good tools for predicting ship behavior. But, unfortunately the quality of the research presentation in my opinion, it disqualifies the above article from publication. There are several issues which should be rewritten, compleated and clarified before publication. Please have a look at some of them, which are listed below:
1. I suggest more deep literature review, which will provide sufficient bacground for the presented metodology placement in the all over the world conducted research. Therefore in my opinion section Introduction should be developed and rewritten.
2. In Fig.1 could you add ship silhouette to the graph? It will make picture more readable.
3. Could you explain why do you link ship heading with the incident wave in such a manner as decribed At the end of paragraph 2.1 (p.2).
4. Equations (1)-(13) need variables explanations, because they are incomprehensible and difficult to use in other scientific studies. Moreover in eq, (10)-(13) you use mathematical division sign ("/") inside the brackets, which seem to define function variables. Could you explain the reason of this formulation usage?
5. Eq. (19) and (20) are written without spaces and due to this mistake they are illegible. I suggest correcting it.
6. Mathematical model section in my opinion needs to be rewised, compleated and rewritten. The way of model presentation has few shortcuts, especially in the presented description. Due to them it is difficult for reader to understand, analyse and interpret.
7. The superscripts in equations (27), (28) and (30) are very small and difficult to read. They are much smaller than other superscripts. I suggest increasing the font in this area.
8. Formulation "GZ_FK+B" and "GZ_FK" in my opinion is a mental shortcut, understandable only to industry experts. This formulation without explanation makes reader confused. Please explain these abbreviations.
9. I suggest changing title of the Section 3. "Subject" is very wide formulation, which in my opinion is not defining this section content.
10. Could you clarify formulation "damaged positions"? and define more clearly how they are marked in Fig.3?
11. Section 3 needs more precise information about ship model, damages and explanation of the damaged conditions and damaged positions. It is hard to understand for a reader how this test bed was designed and research was prepeared. In my opinion it should be described and clarified.
12. Fig.3 is too small, please enlarge it.
13. In Section 4, unfortunately, there is a lack of the simulations test bed, their construction, used software and methodology description. I suggest rewritining of this part, in order to complete this part of manuscript. Only results are presented in Section 4, but comment on them also is limited.
14. Conclusions are not supported by the results and they are very limited. I recommend paying more attention on this section. Also, the quantitative analysis has not been done.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is communicative. There are some wordings, repetitions and punctuation errors. Due to lack of line numbers there was no possibility to point each error.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents a numerical method to predict the roll motion in the beam sea state and present in intact and damaged conditions. This is well needed for 2nd generation intact stability assessment. The method is well explained. The following are the findings by the reviewer which need to be addressed before the publication of this article.
Major comments
· Highlight the novelty of the method and paper.
· Method and explanation of how Damage stability is being calculated is missing.
· The results are simply presented without further discussion of the issue raised by the author.
o It is missing what is the reason from numerical and physical point of view on the results.
o Simply stating that some values are small or larger is not relevant. The relevance must be on how the author explains those changes based on the physics of the problem.
The paper can become more fruitful to the reader if the results are properly explained.
Minor comments
· Figure 5 is good, but it will be much better to also place how the roll angle is varied in time.
· Overall, in all the figures the following changes are required.
o In figure 5 and all other Figures remove “Calculated by Jiang Lu on 26 April 2024”, this can be mentioned in a separate section of authors contribution.
o In figure 5 and all other Figures use legend only once, the space occupied by the legends is too much and repetitive, therefore removing those can enlarge pictures. For e.g. in Fig 5 only keep lambda/Lpp as this is the only thing changing and keep the remaining common details in figure captions.
o Avoid repetition of legends and information, legends can be present only once per figure and information can be put in captions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors corrected everything which I asked to correct.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank You for the corrections made and comments on the unexplained issues. They heve improved the quality of the manuscript, but in my opinion it has still some issues which should be explained, commented and added before publication. Results are still presented only in qualitative manner. In my opinion quantitative comparisons and factors are lacking. Numbers are crucial to prove the numerical method quality. Moreover conclusions are still very limited. I suggest adding some coments about modeling quality and compare them with the other, known and widely used methods of roll prediction.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe result discussion is still missing.
It is still missing what is the reason from numerical and physical point of view on the results.
Simply stating that some values are small or larger is not relevant. The relevance must be on how the author explains those changes based on the physics of the problem.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the comprehensive answers and incorporating the reviewer's suggestions into the text. I suggest only adding punctuation marks after equations. In my opinion manuscript may be published after this one correction.
Author Response
Thank you for your appreciation of our papers. The punctuation marks after equations are added.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReady to be published and good explanation provided.
Author Response
Thank you for your appreciation of our paper.
