Efficient Seismic Fragility Analysis for Large-Scale Piping System Utilizing Bayesian Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
309 - how were the damping values selected? Were they confirmed experimentally?
388 - IDA-based MLE employed 231 analyses, but have the authors tried with less analyses? How can it be stated that 231 is the right number? Considering that this paper is all about methods efficiency, an explanation along this line is somehow expected and could be useful.
393 - the same could be said about the number 43 for the method of the bayesian update of the EPRI SOV.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript deals with structural beahviour of piping systems interacting with jacket frames. The analysis is performed with a bayesian approach, aiming to draw fragility curves.
A simple case study is investigated on South-Korean area to show the efficiency of the proposed methodology: experimental data, referring to piping T-joints are implemented in a numerical simulation.
The manuscript is almost clear, it is of interest for design of industrial plants and the results are widely discussed.
A revision is requested, based on the following recommendations:
line 15 – remove “such a piping system” it is redundant
line 17 – modify as “primary structural frames and the secondary ones”.
line 78 – “secondary structural frames” instead of “secondary structural systems”
line 123-124 - The experience on dynamic tests shows that the variation of eigenfrequencies is not a sensible indicator of deterioration, please take into account this comment. Visual inspections can better help monitoring procedures, frequently used in bridges as in
Mistretta, F., Piras, M.V., Fadda, M.L., A reliable visual inspection method for the assessment of r.c. structures through fuzzy logic analysis, (2015) Proc. 4th Int Symp. on Life-Cycle Civil Engineering, IALCCE 2014, 2015, Pages 1154-1160.
line 127 - No references on experimental monitoring of efficiency of the pipeline system (i.e. corrosion, settlements etc) and of the connections (thermal effects, presteresses, viscosity etc.) please add some considerations and references. Please refer to
Arun Sundaram, K. Kesavan & S. Parivallal, Recent Advances in Health Monitoring and Assessment of In-service Oil and Gas Buried Pipelines, Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series A volume 99, pages729–740 (2018).
line 220 - The Bayesian approach should select mechanical parameters via probabilistic analyses, as in
Andreini, M., Gardoni, P., Pagliara, S., Sassu, M., Probabilistic models for the erosion rate in embankments and reliability analysis of earth dams, (2019), Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 181, pp. 142-155.
line 238 - How is it possible to apply a SOV method (traditionally base on linear differential equations) in case of nonlinear numerical analyses? Please refer to
Porcu, M. C., Patteri, D. M., Melis, S., & Aymerich, F. (2019). Effectiveness of the FRF curvature technique for structural health monitoring. Construction and Building Materials, 226, 173-187.
line 441 – it is not clear how the results can be used to piping systems with different damping ratios (5% for frame and 2% for piping) please give some comment on this aspect.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors improved significantly the manuscript in the new revision.
