Simulation and Analysis of Fluid–Solid–Thermal Unidirectional Coupling of Near-Space Airship

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The manuscript describes a method to analyze the airship through one-way fluid-solid-thermal coupling. There is good material here and will be interesting to the readers. However, certain things need to be described well and improved as below to be accepted.

1) Add 'Unidirectional Coupling' in your title since it is one-way coupling. The distinction between tightly and loosely coupled is important to clarify.

2) More details on the CFD run must be described. Equations solved, turbulence model used, boundary conditions applied.

3) Table 2 shows that this FST coupling analysis was done at sea level. Is this true? If it is, what about the analysis at high altitude which is what the 'Near-space Airship' means. Please add analysis at a high altitude and if you choose not to then add ' at Sea level ' in the title. The coupling behavior changes as you change altitude.

4) Figure 3 needs arrows to describe the analysis flow more clearly

5) One important aspect of multi-physics simulation is convergence and computation time. Please include more details about how well the analysis converged and how long did it take.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 This paper deals with fluid-solid interaction simulation in an airship. The work carried out is advanced but the paper needs further elaboration. I cannot recommend its publication in its present form.

Some concerns:

Introduction

Line 29 -The temperature difference of near-space airship envelope material can reach more than 100K” – Would be better to specify 100K with respect to what

Line 106 - ANSYS WORKBENCH is not a simulation software but rather a platform that groups different software. Were the fluid simulations carried out by ANSYS Fluent? CFX? Was the deformation calculated by ANSYS Mechanical?

Figure 3: only text  is visible, there is no flow diagram

Eqn 21: G would be gravity acceleration (m/s2) or weight (N)?

There is no information at all about the Fluent CFD model, e.g.:

-Domain

-Cell numbers, grid independence study

-Turbulence

-Numerical schemes

Figures in the results section appear to be low quality, I would recommend to enhance them in the final version of the manuscript

Conclusions: the conclusions are mainly a summary of the work done. This section must provide the most important findings obtained by the results with respect to previous literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf