A Study on Slamming Impact Load Characteristics of Energy Storage System Case for Ships
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The slamming impact load was investigated in this manuscript. The tests are conducted by repeatedly dropping into the water using structural bottom angles of 0°, 3°, 10° and 20° with different material and bottom thickness. The peak pressure, pressure width, impulse, pressure coefficient and traveling velocity of peak pressure were obtained. Reviewer suggested that the manuscript should be modified with major revision before publication, the details are listed below:
(1)Line 103-105. The experiment was performed by changing the thickness and deadrise angle given in Table 1. 0.3mm after the variation of the experiment in almost no elasticity conducted experiments in the transformation area. What is the meaning of " 0.3mm after the variation of the experiment in almost no elasticity conducted experiments in the transformation area". Please clarify it
(2)Line 121-124. There are no fig to support the conclusion that " Even for the same same condition, the results of impulsive pressure loading in the 0° steel wedge shows a different phenomenon from that in the 0° wood wedge model," please clarify it .
(3)Line 125-126. There are no fig to support the conclusion that "Only one peak was observed in the 0° wood wedge model. However, the pressure results of the steel-wedge model showed several peak pressures." please clarify it.
(4)Fig.8 (b) shows that the pressure peak of deadrise angle 3° under different drop height were much larger than other deadrise angle. What is the reason? Please clarify it .
(5)Line 151-163, the meaning of this paragraph is hard to understand. Please rewrite it.
(6)Fig 13,fig 14 and fig 15 are not clear. Please upload new pictures.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Advice for the author
1. The introduction is presented not enough, including the summarization of the literature reference, it is not able to support the main idea the paper will express. The suggestion is to rewrite this part and make it clear.
2. Fig.4 is not very clear, please substitute it with the high-resolution figure.
3. In the abstract, “it is necessary to study the slamming 19 load, and a method is needed to address it with a dynamic load instead of a static load”, how is the dynamic load considered in the paper, please explain this.
4. The innovation of the paper is not explained clearly, the highlight in the paper is too general. The main contribution of the paper is the test, but I think the author’s unique idea of test design should be the main explanation. To explain clearly why adopt the mentioned parameters, the suggestion is to reconstruct the content to highlight the paper’s innovation. From this point, I think this paper should require major revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper presented a free drop test. The authors compared and tested steel and wood wedge models with different deadrise angles at different drop heights. However, in my opinion, the manuscript is not well addressed, and the main problems are listed as follows.
1. The first remark is about the introduction. The argument does not match the evidence.
Line 59 “Therefore, if this uncertainty is to be considered in the design process, it must be quantified.”
Line 62 “In other words, a dropping wedge with acceleration penetrated a small shaking surface, resulting in poor repeatability.”
Line 66 “However, there are no studies reporting on the quantification of the uncertainty.”
From the introduction, it seems that the authors emphasized the uncertainty of the experiment associated with the reproducibility of the experiment. And the authors repeated each experiment five times for the deadrise angle. The following research has nothing to do with uncertainty from experiments.
2. Line 130 “This can be attributed to the air effect and natural frequency of the plate” is not convincing. The pressure time history of 0° wood wedge model was not presented. The wood wedge model was considered as a rigid model and the steel wedge model was considered elastic. The several peaks in steel wedge model may be induced by the whipping phenomena due to hydroelasticity not air cushion effect. Please dig deeper.
3. I wonder if there was something wrong with Fig. 8(b). The maximum peak pressure has reached 1 MPa. The same as Fig. 12(b).
4. In conclusion, Line 391 “Before the pre-drop test, the effects of the sampling rate and pressure sensor were compared, and the experimental setup was fully installed.” The effect of sampling rate was not investigated in the paper.
5. The conclusions are rather qualitative and are not convincing. For example, conclusion (1) is common sense. In conclusion (2) “So there seems to be a big difference in the position.”, at different points, the relative speed of the plate and the water is different, so the pressure at different positions is naturally different. To draw some quantitative conclusions that can give useful guidance for structural impact.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
the revised manuscript can be accepted.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is accepted after major revision.
