Freelance projects › Mathematical and numerical simulation for optimization of ship’s hull Mathematical and numerical simulation for optimization of ship’s hull
open for proposalsНужно доработать статью по замечаниям:
(статья во вложении)
Reviewer #1:
Firstly, the authors asserted that new mathematical models have not appeared particularly for the stormy seas. But there are numerous studies on seakeeping of ships under severe environmental conditions, so that the authors should look at them.
The approach that the authors adopted is said to be the Decisionbased Design Paradigm introduced by Mitree et. al (1990). This is acceptable and an attempt which may make the present study interesting. But we didnt see a serious and systematic design algorithm or procedure clearly defined and supported by computational and/or experimental means. Instead of a welldefined design algorithm, there are series of definitions and expressions which are not coherent;
i) Modeling of wave pattern around the ship is said to be performed by Wolfram Mathematica. It is not understood from here that what sort of theory is used in Mathematica to calculate the wave resistance
ii) Then, it is mentioned; The physical calculation of model includes an incompressible fluid model based on Reynolds equation. What did the authors mean by Reynolds equation? A RANS solution of NS equation? Is it intended to calculate viscous resistance of the hull  whereas there is no indication in the manuscript that viscous effects are taken into account in the optimization procedure?
iii) The given velocity of 26 knots and corresponding Froude number of 0.28 implies a ship with a length of 232.6 m. Is this the fishing vessel treated in the study? Eventually, in the following paragraphs, the vessel length is given as 25 m!
iv) The authors mentioned, in one of the paragraphs; stabilization of longitudinal rolling. I think they meant pitching motion.
v) The authors discussed also the design of superstructure. They explain what was carried out by giving again general descriptions which are not clear enough.
vi) The authors only consider shape optimization in calm water and assume that it increases the seaworthiness in stormy conditions where a seakeeping analysis is indeed required, but not exists in the paper. Moreover, there is no satisfactory information on the shape optimization of the vessel  e.g., the tools employed in the optimization study.
vii) It is asserted in the Conclusions that the bulb designed help to reduce the wave resistance in calm water. But there is no evidence in the paper to support this conclusion, as there are other conclusions without any supportive data.
Reviewer #2: The novel is not worthy of publishing. The methods used in this study is very common, and some conclusions have been verified by many papers. Many numerical simulation results and optimisation results should be added in your paper to prove your viewpoints.
1.The numerical simulation results should be listed in your paper, in order to show which speed you used, and the resistance results for different speed should be added.
2.The general properties of the ship should be added.
3.The numerical simulation methods should be added, the flow field for original and optimal ships should be listed to showing the resistance reduction effect.
4. The resistance for the original and optimal ships at different speeds also should be added to illustrate the reliability of the optimal ship you obtained.
Applications 1

"Нужно доработать статью по замечаниям"
В "замечаниях" нет про "нужно доработать".
Там однозначно сказано: "нужно писать новую статью".

Скажите автору, что "дорабатывать" безнадёжно.
Без его личной работы (научной новизны!) статью не примут.
Первый рецензент требует welldefined design algorithm, а второй  много численных экспериментов.
Так что автору ещё пахать и пахать.