Standard Wave Scatter Table Limitation for Evaluating SGISC Based on Hindcast Data Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper investigates the existing standard Wave Scatter Table (WST) representation of the wave profile when compared to individual sea areas. In the investigation performed by the authors they compare the quality and representativeness of waves in the recommended standard WST with hindcast data WST and compares operational measure (OM) outcomes for both region and season. The novelty of this paper appears in investigating the need for regional and seasonal WST over the standard WST.
1. I consider that the topic is actual and scientifically interesting. The manuscript is clearly structured and organized, it is easy to follow and the terminology is appropriate to the subject. Tables and figures are used effectively and support the text, also reference citations are complete and accurate.
2. The content of the paper is succinctly described and contextualized in relation to the presented theoretical background.
3. I would recommend to emphasize in the abstract more strongly the relevance, originality and quality of the research, persuasively suggesting to the potential reader the items of interest that the work proposes.
4. In my opinion the applied research method is presented clearly and in detail, providing the necessary elements for the reproduction of research by any other research group that uses it exactly (the repetitive and reproducible nature of science). To what extent does the research methodology that you proposed ensure obtaining valid results for other types of ships: oil tanker, passenger ship, etc.?
5. The concluding elements of the paper must be represented by strong statements based on scientific arguments that are presented clearly and concisely. However, I believe that the authors should reflect the extent to which the results answered the questions mentioned in the introductory part: What is the research gab and what is your paper's contribution/ innovation for the research? In my opinion, solid arguments on the conclusions of the paper will open new research directions and lead to the deepening of the issues studied by potential readers.
6. It was found that the references (number of 17) are described accurately, honestly and deontologically by the authors. However, I believe that the paper could be supplemented with other bibliographic references to which the research carried out should refer. From this perspective, I recommend you to consult the following bibliographical references:
Liwång, H. (2019). Exposure, vulnerability and recoverability in relation to a ship's intact stability. Ocean Engineering, 187, 106218.
Schrøter, C., Lützen, M., Erichsen, H., Jensen, J. J., Kristensen, H. O., Lauridsen, P. H., ... & Baltsersen, J. P. (2017, June). Sample applications of the second generation intact stability criteria—Robustness and consistency analysis. In Proceedings of the 16th International Ship Stability Workshop, Belgrade, Serbia (pp. 5-7).
Shin, D. M., & Moon, B. Y. (2022). Assessment of Excessive Acceleration of the IMO Second Generation Intact Stability Criteria for the Tanker. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10(2), 229.
Umeda, N., Osugi, M., Sakai, M., Matsuda, A., & Terada, D. (2017). Model experiment on pure loss of stability for a ship in astern waves and its relationship with the Second Generation Intact Stability Criteria. In Proceedings of the 16th International Ship Stability Workshop, Belgrade (pp. 21-26).
7. I recommend detailing future research opportunities that are considered feasible and scientifically fertile in the field.
8. At the end of the paper, before the bibliographic references, I recommend inserting the Author Contributions section. Specify the contribution of each author!
9. Other: Take a closer look at how the paper's sections are structured and numbered. Make the necessary corrections!
Author Response
We thank the editor and the reviewers for the time and the constructive comments provided in the revision. Kindly find the attached file of the author's response to the comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents a comparison among Wave Scatter Table evaluated on the basis of local weather hindcast. The outcomes of this analysis have been analysed within the framework of second-generation intact stability criteria (SGISc) by means the application of operational limitation to the vulnerability level 1 of excessive acceleration stability failure.
The addressed topic is current and relevant for the intact stability and ship safety in general. However, main concept at the basis of the SGISc are not well handled nor exhaustively reported in the paper. On the contrary, analysis of weather hindcast and the derived wave scatter tables seem sounds and valuable.
As a general comment, this work demonstrates successfully that local and seasonal WST provide a more accurate stability and safety estimation than the annual WST. It seems to me that this bring little to no new information, since annual WST are obtained as the average of seasonal WST. Thus, considering averaged WST will underestimate or overestimate, respectively worst and best seasonal scenario. With this regard, as reported in MSC.1/Circ.1627, the criteria return a probabilistic measure of the ship safety level and/or her possible vulnerability to a specific failure mode. It means that, even if a ship is compliant to any vulnerability levels, under unlucky conditions, the stability failure may occur.
I recommend to effectively improve the paper prior the publication. The following comment are given:
- [Fig.1; Fig. 4, Fig. 5] I deem that a better representation of Fig. 1, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 will improve their comparison. Since the wave occurrence seems located in a narrow area, acting on the horizontal and vertical axes may enlarge the interesting cases representation. In addition, with reference to Fig. 1, the ranges of significant wave height (from 0.5 to 16.5 meters) and zero-crossing wave period (from 3.5 to 18.5 seconds) for the North Atlantic WST are far below the maximum value reported in the figure.
- [At the end of Page 3] In principle, since there is no hierarchy among levels, Operational Guidance (OG) can be directly applied without the application of design assessment nor operational limitation. Thus, the ship can operate with OG even if Operational Limitaiton (OL) are not applied to the recommended WST.
- [Page 4 – Paragraph 1] Typo in the acronym: “SGISC” instead of “SCISC”.
- [Page 4 – Paragraph 2] The MSC.1/Circular1627 clearly states that whether OG or OL related to maximum significant wave height are defined, the Officers should be provided of detailed and accurate weather forecast in a sufficient time before encountering possible dangerous conditions. Nevertheless, it should be noted that both OG and OL are defined during the design phase, or at least prior the navigation, thus Operational Measures should be developed based on the several possible sailing conditions (i.e., heading, speed and sea states) which may be encountered during the voyage.
- [Page 4 / Section: “Methodology] Numbering of the sections is incorrect. This will affect all the paper throughout.
- [Page 6 / Line 2] Typo: “matrix” instead of “matric”.
- [Page 6 / Eq.1 and Eq.2] Which is the peak shape parameter assumed to evaluate the relationship among TZ, TP and T01?
- [Page 6-7 / Section 1.1] Section “Excessive acceleration vulnerability assessment and operational limitation” is unclear and somehow a bit confusing. Due to the simplified structure of Vulnerability Level 1 (Lv1) of Excessive Acceleration (EA), I deem that reporting the actual formula of this criterion may aid the reader to understand the applied methodology. I suggest to deeply rewrite this section as clear as possible.
- [Page 7 / Paragraph 1] In this analysis, the Lv1 of EA has been applied to evaluate the effect of a changing of the standard WST with a local/regional WST. To appreciate this influence, the methodology proposed by Bulian & Francescutto (2021) has been applied. However, structure of vulnerability levels 2 seems to be more appropriate to such analysis since the WST is directly computed in the calculation procedure. I wonder whether the authors considered the possibility to apply Lv2 of EA. Comments about this choice should be added.
- [Fig. 6 to Fig. 9] Similarly to the first comment, a uniform graphical representation for these Figures may improve the comparison of the results, e.g., the same ranges on the horizontal axis should be shown. In addition, reducing the upper limit of the vertical axes will enlarge the curves which are the subject of the graphs.
- [at the end of Page 12] Typo in the cross-reference to Figure 6 or Figure 9.
- [Table 8] It is my understanding that the line “S%” reports the percentual change between the Mean values of shape parameters for each season (Table 8: row 2; columns 2 to 5) and the Mean value of shape parameter of “IMO recommended standard WST”, i.e., “BGW” (Table 6: .row 2; column 3). If this is true, values reported in Table 8 should be different. Please, can you explain the actual meaning of “S%”? Can you confirm values in Table 8 are correct?
- [Page 17] In the last line, the term of “simplified operational measures” is used. What is the actual meaning of it? Why simplified? The work of this paper seems to be framed as an Operational Limitation related to a geographical area or season applied to Lv1 of EA.
- [Page 17 / Section “2. Conclusion”] Limitations and possible future developments about this paper should be commented.
Author Response
We thank the editor and the reviewers for the time and the constructive comments provided in the revision. Kindly find the attached file of the author's response to the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
As suggested, improvements to the paper have been done. I deem it can be published.
