Referee’s comments on manuscript OE-D-18-00018:

Evaluation of Liquid Sloshing Damping in Cylindrical Tanks with Vertical Baffles by Rohollah
Dehghani Firouz-Abadi et al.

The proposed paper does not bring much novelty. As the authors point out in their literature
review there have been many similar investigations in tanks of other shapes, or for different
types of baffles. In their literature review they have missed the book ”Sloshing” by Faltinsen
and Timokha which has a complete chapter (Chapter 6) on ”Viscous wave loads and damping”.
In my opinion the authors’work is worth, at most, a conference paper.

Would the editor be of a different opinion, here follow some detailed comments:

• In equation (3), J1′ should be J1 .

• Cd coefficient: based on an asymptotic analysis by Graham, Faltinsen & Timokha (and

−1/3
many others) take Cd ≃ 8 KC for a flat plate (with KC the Keulegan-Carpenter number
KC = U τ /w). The authors take a different law which is insufficiently justified.

• Page 9, line 18: ”experimentally by Case and Parkinson”. Not ”experimentally” but ”theo-
retically” (with some experimental confirmation).

• Validation: comparisons by the authors of their theoretical results with experiments is very
limited. They do not perform experiments but compare with old tests (1963) by the NASA.
In Table 1 they present unconvincing damping ratio values, they do not write for which slosh-
ing amplitudes they have been obtained. Since, from their equation (15), the damping ratio
depends on ηm (the sloshing amplitude), they should precise at which ηm value the damping
ratios are compared. Moreover I understand that the NASA experiments are free decay tests,
meaning that the sloshing amplitude decreases from cycle to cycle, whereas the authors’theory
is for steady state oscillations at constant amplitude. Due to wake memory effects it is known
(from viscous roll damping for instance) that the damping values derived from the two kinds
of experiments can differ to a large extent.

• The last paragraph in page 10, about shallow depth effect, makes little sense to me. When
the depth is shallow there is enhanced dissipation (as compared to the deep tank case) due to
the slow vertical decrease of the kinematics and due to friction on the bottom of the tank.