Hydrodynamic Response of a Large-Scale Mariculture Ship Based on Potential Flow Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Generally, the paper is nice. I think the analytical solution is not necessary in this paper. You can remove it as you did not use it as reference in the result section. The result section requires more in-depth analysis. 

The caption for Figure 1 needs more explanation.

Line 40 – “The study methodlogy of such floating structure is the core the the whole research work” – change to “The current work focuses on the structural analysis of Dehai-1 floating ship”

Line 40 – “In alternative research” – delete this.

Line 41 – “--- and breakwaters are studied, …” – change to “--- and breakwaters have been studied by many.” – please put period instead of a comma.

Line 41 – “In which,” – change to “For example,”

Line 42 – “…. and the breakwaters, and …” – break the sentence into two. Stop after “breakwaters” and put the citation. Then start a new sentence.

Section 2.1 describes an analytical work. In this section, include a sketch or a diagram explaining the model of the ocean and the boat in a 2D Cartesian system clearly showing the X and Z directions. In the diagram, clearly show the domain.

The BC shown in equation 5 needs to be corrected. It is not clear.

What is “eta” in this section? Please define or describe variables in equations laid out in this section.

Equations in lines 93 to 103 need description of their variables. What are “sh”, “ch”, “ks”, “kd”, “H”, etc.?

Also, a diagram is needed to explain variables shown in line 117.

Figure 2 is good, but it needs dimensions as well as some description on the mass or weight of the structure components.

Line 136 – 138 – Please elaborate. What does “… the inversion of the integration operation matrices is required …” mean in this sentence? If it is not needed, please simply remove this sentence.

Lines 140 to 141 – What is the meaning of this sentence? “… this study predominantly referenced the SEAFINE JIP … “ Please further explain or give examples.

Also, in line 141 – Please add examples of the “extreme conditions”.

Line 146 – The current velocity used in the analysis is less than 2 m/s. Please add references for this speed. This is very small velocity.

Figure 3 – please include dimensions. Also, please include arrows that indicate the application of forces as well as markers for boundary conditions.

The mesh of the blocks shown in Figure 3 is very fine. Is it necessary? Also, what are the elements used for the truss members?   

Line 159 – “Referring to the South China Sea wave scatter diagram … “ – Where is the diagram? Is it shown in the paper? If it is not, please describe using diagram, tables, etc.

Line 161 – “… is chosen as a benchmark …” – what does it mean? A benchmark typically is used to validate outputs from numerical simulation. What does it mean here?

Line 163 – “By altering the flow velocity …” – what does “altering” mean here? Were you trying to “vary” the speed?

Line 165 – Please elaborate the discussion for the results depicted in Figure 4.

Figure 5 – the fonts are too small here – also, please use MN, million Newton for the forces.

In Figure 5 – use single dots with error bars instead of three lines depicting minimum, average and maximum.

In Figure 5 – what do X and Y directions mean here? Which one is along the ship?  

Generally, the result section requires more in-depth analysis and description. What is in the paper is good, but it needs to be explained more.

The figures are all very good but the fonts are too small. The publisher will tell the minimum sizes. The caption for each figure needs to be elaborated.

In the Conclusion section – please use bullet points to state take-home messages and important conclusion. Also, please add one or two important future works.

 

 

 

Please consult an English editor to improve the writing.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. These opinions help to improve academic rigor of our article. Based on your suggestion and request, we have made corrected modifications on the revised manuscript. We hope that our work can be improved again. Furthermore, we would like to show the details as follows:

1.The caption for Figure 1 needs more explanation.

Answer:Figure 1 presents the conceptual diagram and real photograph of the Dehai-1, We have added the introduction of Dehai-1 in the previous section.

2.Line 40 – “The study methodlogy of such floating structure is the core the the whole research work” – change to “The current work focuses on the structural analysis of Dehai-1 floating ship”

Line 40 – “In alternative research” – delete this.

Line 41 – “--- and breakwaters are studied, …” – change to “--- and breakwaters have been studied by many.” – please put period instead of a comma.

Line 41 – “In which,” – change to “For example,”

Line 42 – “…. and the breakwaters, and …” – break the sentence into two. Stop after “breakwaters” and put the citation. Then start a new sentence.

Answer:We've completed the changes.

3.Section 2.1 describes an analytical work. In this section, include a sketch or a diagram explaining the model of the ocean and the boat in a 2D Cartesian system clearly showing the X and Z directions. In the diagram, clearly show the domain.

Answer:This part of what needs to be shown is clearly presented in Figures 3 and 4.

4.The BC shown in equation 5 needs to be corrected. It is not clear.

Answer:We have completed the correction.

5.What is “eta” in this section? Please define or describe variables in equations laid out in this section.

Equations in lines 93 to 103 need description of their variables. What are “sh”, “ch”, “ks”, “kd”, “H”, etc.?

Also, a diagram is needed to explain variables shown in line 117.

Answer:We added explanations for the variables.

6.Figure 2 is good, but it needs dimensions as well as some description on the mass or weight of the structure components.

Answer:We put the information into Tables 1 and 2.

7.Line 136 – 138 – Please elaborate. What does “… the inversion of the integration operation matrices is required …” mean in this sentence? If it is not needed, please simply remove this sentence.

Answer:We have removed this sentence.

8.Lines 140 to 141 – What is the meaning of this sentence? “… this study predominantly referenced the SEAFINE JIP … “ Please further explain or give examples.

Also, in line 141 – Please add examples of the “extreme conditions”.

Answer:The Marine environmental parameters in the northern part of the South China Sea provided by SEAFINE JIP database and CCS-Metocean database have certain reference value for the selection of marine working condition model. The extreme conditions refer to the data of super typhoon Mangkhut, which occurred in the South China Sea in 2018. Super typhoon Mangkhut lasts for more than 10 hours with an average wind speed of 48 m/s, a gust of wind speed of more than 63 m/s, and an irregular wave height of 3-4 m. 

9.Line 146 – The current velocity used in the analysis is less than 2 m/s. Please add references for this speed. This is very small velocity.

Answer:This data was found in the SEAFINE JIP database and CCS-Metocean database.

10.Figure 3 – please include dimensions. Also, please include arrows that indicate the application of forces as well as markers for boundary conditions.

The mesh of the blocks shown in Figure 3 is very fine. Is it necessary? Also, what are the elements used for the truss members?   

Answer: The mesh cannot be displayed at the same time as the forces and boundary conditions. They are defined through the aqua module, and we have written them in the preceding text.

The quantity and quality of the mesh directly affects the simulation. Beam units are used for the truss members

11.Line 159 – “Referring to the South China Sea wave scatter diagram … “ – Where is the diagram? Is it shown in the paper? If it is not, please describe using diagram, tables, etc.

Answer:This data was found in the SEAFINE JIP database and CCS-Metocean database.We didn't include the image in the article because it is too large.

12.Line 161 – “… is chosen as a benchmark …” – what does it mean? A benchmark typically is used to validate outputs from numerical simulation. What does it mean here?

Answer:Sorry, we meant to say the basic working condition not benchmarks.We've made the correction.

13.Line 163 – “By altering the flow velocity …” – what does “altering” mean here? Were you trying to “vary” the speed?

Answer:By setting different flow velocities, the variation of the mooring force of the structure at different flow velocities is obtained.

14.Line 165 – Please elaborate the discussion for the results depicted in Figure 4.

Answer:Under the action of periodic wave-induced forces with a fixed period, the structure shows periodic forced vibration. Increasing flow velocity, the mooring forces exhibit a notable increase as the flow direction is opposite to the stretching direction of the mooring chain. The changing trend of mooring force and the distribution area of mooring force at different flow velocities need to be observed by comparison. Figure 6 shows a further analysis of the above results.

15.Figure 5 – the fonts are too small here – also, please use MN, million Newton for the forces.

Answer:We have modified the font size in the figure while using kN as the unit of force.

16.In Figure 5 – use single dots with error bars instead of three lines depicting minimum, average and maximum.

Answer:Using single dots with error bars, it is not possible to connect the maximum and minimum values to derive their trends and envelope space.

17.In Figure 5 – what do X and Y directions mean here? Which one is along the ship?  

Answer: X-direction is along the ship, and Y-direction is perpendicular to the ship.

18.Generally, the result section requires more in-depth analysis and description. What is in the paper is good, but it needs to be explained more.

Answer:We have made improvements in the article.

19.The figures are all very good but the fonts are too small. The publisher will tell the minimum sizes. The caption for each figure needs to be elaborated.

Answer:We've changed all the fonts on the diagrams.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes marked in red in revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

There are many issues which must be addressed in this manuscript. Some of them are listed as follows:

a. In line 7, what did the Authors mean by "Simating?"

b. As mentioned by the Authors, "If simulation only is a route to analyze structural behaviors of mariculture ship, then what is the advantage of the research?

c. The introduction and the entire manuscript have grammatical flaws and typo errors. Authors must patiently read the manuscript and ensure they dot the i's and cross the t's.

d. Literature is literature. Nothing like literatures. 

e. The Mooring model presented in Section 3.4 is too shallow.

f. The results and discussions are poorly presented; they have no reference discussion. 

g. Authors mentioned benchmark conditions in their results without prior statements.

h. etc.

In summary, the manuscript lacks an in-depth discussion of the study results; the diagrams are poorly presented without clarity and discussion. 

 

The manuscript must be thoroughly edited.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. These opinions help to improve academic rigor of our article. Based on your suggestion and request, we have made corrected modifications on the revised manuscript. We hope that our work can be improved again. Furthermore, we would like to show the details as follows:

1.In line 7, what did the Authors mean by "Simating?"

Answer:We feel sorry for our carelessness. In our resubmitted manuscript, the typo is revised. Thanks for your correction.

2.As mentioned by the Authors, "If simulation only is a route to analyze structural behaviors of mariculture ship, then what is the advantage of the research?

Answer:In the past research, the study of small and medium-sized flexible cages represented by gravity nets is relatively mature. There are also many documents in the research on the structure of large sea board, hull and other structures. But the study of super-fisheries is limited by the complexity and cost of structures, which makes it difficult to carry out simulation or experimental research on the original structure directly. In this paper, we attempt to establish an overall analytical model for permeable and complex structures by means of a numerical modeling approach that is more general and computationally powerful. The numerical simulation in this paper is better than that of traditional flexible cages, net suits and floating bodies, and the model is streamlined and highly efficient, which can provide optimized design solutions for the study of such fishing structures, and the intuitive data such as dynamic response can be used as the basis for the scientific design and safety assessment of deep-sea aquaculture fishing grounds.

3.The introduction and the entire manuscript have grammatical flaws and typo errors. Authors must patiently read the manuscript and ensure they dot the i's and cross the t's.

Answer:We feel sorry for our carelessness. In our resubmitted manuscript, the typo is revised. Thanks for your correction.

4.Literature is literature. Nothing like literatures.

Answer:We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We have checked the literature carefully and extracted valid information.

5.The Mooring model presented in Section 3.4 is too shallow.

Answer:Thanks for your suggestion. We have tried our best to add a description of the mooring model in the revised manuscript.

6.The results and discussions are poorly presented; they have no reference discussion.

Answer:We have re-written this part according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

7.Authors mentioned benchmark conditions in their results without prior statements.

Answer:Sorry, we meant to say the basic working condition not benchmarks.We've made the correction.The flow velocity of 1 m/s, wave height of 4 meters and period of 8 seconds can be selected as the basic working condition in this paper . 

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes marked in red in revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this work, a simulation was performed based on potential flow theory, focusing on a semi-submersible large sacle mariculture ship with rigid frame using the Abaqus/Aqua software. The manuscript is well-written and the data-results are accepted. However the authors can improve the work by highlighting some points. The novelty should be provided. The introduction is poor; more recent related work can enrich this section. The resolution of most figures is low. The conclusion should present all findings clearly. Better to re-scale the force axes in the figures using KN units instead of N.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. These opinions help to improve academic rigor of our article. Based on your suggestion and request, we have made corrected modifications on the revised manuscript. We hope that our work can be improved again. And we have modified the font size in the figure while using kN as the unit of force.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes marked in red in revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have satisfactorily modified the manuscript.

Moderate