Determination of Loading and Residual Stresses on Offshore Jacket Structures by X-ray Diffraction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, it is an interesting presentation of research in the field of offshore structures. However, several considerations for improvement are expected.
1. The abstract is presented with good appropriate elements. However, reading the subsequent organization some quite confusing.
2. Line 64- be careful in indicating "no investigation." The word "lacking" is more appropriate. How sure are you when lack of coverage of references within current 5 years.
3. Referring to Figure 2. It is good to have P1-5 being explained on the position and referring to what conditions. It should be a clearly defined method. I can only understand them in the results.
4. It is quite difficult to associate the results with which type of method of diffraction. There are several mentions under sun heading 4.0
5. The organization of the paper. Is there any mistake in the sequent of subheading 1, 2, 3, 4 (3.1.....????) , 5, 4, 6 (4 twice??). Kindly look at this issue seriously.
6. Line 2008-210 what do you mean by "performed under laboratory conditions, 209 which was obviously not the case in this study"...The statement seems contradicting.
7. It is good to see 2023 paper being cited. However, still, the references lack current 5 years papers. So, the analysis of previous work may not provide good direction of research.
Author Response
Reviewer 1: Overall, it is an interesting presentation of research in the field of offshore structures. However, several considerations for improvement are expected.
Authors: Thank you for your comments. According to your comments some improvements were made and grey-marked.
- Reviewer: The abstract is presented with good appropriate elements. However, reading the subsequent organization some quite confusing.
Authors: Some sentences in the abstract were adjusted to improve the organization.
- Reviewer: Line 64- be careful in indicating "no investigation." The word "lacking" is more appropriate. How sure are you when lack of coverage of references within current 5 years.
Authors: The word “no” was replaced by lacking.
- Reviewer: Referring to Figure 2. It is good to have P1-5 being explained on the position and referring to what conditions. It should be a clearly defined method. I can only understand them in the results.
Authors: The Figure was corrected and the material conditions at P1 to P6 were added. Also some description in the text was added to explain the conditions.
- Reviewer: It is quite difficult to associate the results with which type of method of diffraction. There are several mentions under sun heading 4.0
Authors: Unfortunately, for authors the meaning of your comment is not clear. There is actually only type of X-ray diffraction. Did you mean the evaluation method or the evaluation of residual stresses and FWHM? Some improvements were made regarding Figuee 5 (a) and a explanation in the text that makes the difference between the evaluated residual stresses and FWHM-value clear.
- Reviewer: The organization of the paper. Is there any mistake in the sequent of subheading 1, 2, 3, 4 (3.1.....????) , 5, 4, 6 (4 twice??). Kindly look at this issue seriously.
Authors: Our apologies for this. We are corrected the wrong assignments in the text.
- Reviewer: Line 2008-210 what do you mean by "performed under laboratory conditions, 209 which was obviously not the case in this study"...The statement seems contradicting.
Authors: Some more descriptions were added to explain the difference between laboratory conditions. The following sentences were re-written to avoid confusion.
- Reviewer: It is good to see 2023 paper being cited. However, still, the references lack current 5 years papers. So, the analysis of previous work may not provide good direction of research.
Authors: The authors understand this issue. However, the technique of XRD-measurements by the cos-alpha method is pretty new (first publications in 2016). No many references are available. Furthermore, quite less literature is available regarding the residual stresses in offshore jacket structures even if numerous papers are published regarding the fatigue assessment in the last years. Also, the references 1,2,21,23,24,25,26 and 33 are less than 5 years old.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have tried to contribute to a challenging area of condition monitoring of offshore structures using X-ray diffraction technology. The concept and approach described in this work is a good start however some improvements must be considered to practical application.
Some observations are noted below.
- Ref to line 55 - can authors showcase the validity of this statement using their experiment.
- line 176 - " ....which is related to different material conditions at these measurement positions...." can authors list the different material conditions they are refering to.
- Can authors write short description for each of the plots. This will improve the quality of the paper.
- Although the paper demonstrates some good results and is a novel contribution, can authors compare the results of x-ray diffraction technique with other some other condition monitoring techniques, and show advantages or limitations of x-ray technique with other techniques?
- Can authors list the advantages, limitations and other places of use of x-ray diffraction technique?
The authors have tried to address a matter of significant importance - condition monitoring of the physical integrity of structures in offshore conditions. Although the work has inherent limitations in terms of practical usage, it is an excellent first step.
Author Response
Reviewer 2: The authors have tried to contribute to a challenging area of condition monitoring of offshore structures using X-ray diffraction technology. The concept and approach described in this work is a good start however some improvements must be considered to practical application.
Some observations are noted below.
Reviewer: - Ref to line 55 - can authors showcase the validity of this statement using their experiment.
Authors: If we get the reviewer comment correctly, the fatigue experiments have to show if cracks initiating at positions where high loading or tensile residual stresses were measured or did not initiate at positions where compressive residual stresses were measured. Further investigations are needed for this correlation that will be performed in the next steps. However, it was not possible to include it in the manuscript currently. Some sentences were added to section 7 as outlook.
Reviewer: - line 176 - " ....which is related to different material conditions at these measurement positions...." can authors list the different material conditions they are refering to.
Authors: The material conditions are listed in a new version of Figure 2.
Reviewer: - Can authors write short description for each of the plots. This will improve the quality of the paper.
Authors: Some more descriptions were added especially for Figure 6 and Figure 7 with multiple sub-figures.
Reviewer: - Although the paper demonstrates some good results and is a novel contribution, can authors compare the results of x-ray diffraction technique with other some other condition monitoring techniques, and show advantages or limitations of x-ray technique with other techniques?
Authors: Due technical limitations (size and weight) typical sin²Psi-diffractometer could only used with a very high effort XRD analysis at such structures. For that reason only measurements were only performed with the cos-alpha diffractometer. However, multiple comparisons were already performed see Ref 19,20,21 and 22. A comprehensive comparison will be published by the same authors in reference 23 (not published yet). For this reasons no further attention is paid to this comparison in this work.
Reviewer: - Can authors list the advantages, limitations and other places of use of x-ray diffraction technique?
Authors: An additional paragraph is added at the end of section 6 regarding this issue. Some practical limitations but advantages to other methods (for example DIC are discussed).
