Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Ice-Induced Vibration Analysis of Fixed-Bottom Wind Turbine Towers

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12(7), 1159; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12071159

by Bin Wang^1,2, Haoyang Yin^3,*, Shan Gao^1,2, Yan Qu³ and Zhenju Chuang⁴

Reviewer 1:

Chana Sinsabvarodom

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12(7), 1159; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12071159

Submission received: 31 May 2024 / Revised: 5 July 2024 / Accepted: 6 July 2024 / Published: 10 July 2024

(This article belongs to the Section Ocean Engineering)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is very interesting. The research highlights the importance of considering both FLI and continuous brittle crushing in the design and assessment of offshore wind turbines. By quantifying the probabilities and impacts of these interactions, the authors provide critical data to ensure the structural resilience of wind turbines against ice-related hazards. This comprehensive understanding guarantees that offshore wind turbines can be safely and effectively deployed in ice-prone regions, promoting the expansion of renewable energy sources in challenging environments. The findings underscore the need for ongoing research and innovation to address the dynamic and evolving challenges in marine engineering.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer X Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes	The introduction has been streamlined.
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes	The cited references have been re-cited. Removed/added new articles
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes	research design was rewritten and updated
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes	methods are re-described in a new section
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes	Results and discussion parts rewritten
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes	The conclusion section has been separated from the results section
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for your encouraging feedback on our manuscript. We are delighted to hear that you found our work interesting and valuable. We appreciate your recognition of the importance of considering both FLI interactions and continuous brittle crushing in the design and assessment of offshore wind turbines.
We are pleased that our efforts to quantify the probabilities and impacts of these interactions have been acknowledged as providing critical data for ensuring the structural resilience of wind turbines against ice-related hazards. Our goal was to offer a comprehensive understanding that can aid in the safe and effective deployment of offshore wind turbines in ice regions.
We agree that ongoing research and innovation are essential to address the dynamic and evolving challenges in marine engineering. Your feedback reinforces our commitment to continuing our investigations and contributing to the field.
Thank you again for your kind words and support. We look forward to any further comments or suggestions you may have.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Ref. No.: Manuscript ID: jmse-3060738

Title: Vibration Analysis of Fixed-Bottom Cylindrical Wind Turbines Due to Ice Loads

This manuscript proposes an analysis process for fixed offshore wind turbine FLI based on ductile damage-collapse method.

In general, there are many problems with the form and content of the article. The main problems are listed below.

1) The manuscript is poorly structured. Methods poorly described; results in the method section; results section without any discussion; and some discussions of the results are within the conclusion section.

2) Many problems with the references, figures, equations and tables. More specifically:

2.1) Almost all the references cited in the text do not agree with the references listed at the end of the manuscript.

2.2) Poor-quality, low-resolution figures, many of which are not cited in the text.

2.3) Some equations are in bold, and others are not.

2.4) Many tables with repeated numbering. Many without text spacing.

3) More details are missing regarding the mesh and boundary conditions used in the numerical modeling.

4) The conclusions state that the manuscript presented two analytical methods (DDC and ISO). In fact, these methods are not explicitly described in the methods section. They are only cited in an example.

5) Equations for the Rayleigh proportional damping coefficients are presented based on a particular case (for only the first two natural and equal frequencies). If the analysis were carried out with more than two vibration modes, what would the coefficient expressions look like? The analysis is shown for two modes, but only one damping factor.

6) In the results section there are only figures and tables, with no discussion or comments on these graphical results.

7) The word "tower" should be added to the title. The scope of the vibration analysis only includes the tower.

I recommend that the authors reformulate the entire manuscript, describing each method on a solid basis, in a specific section. Results should be presented and discussed in a specific section. And correct references, figures, equations, and tables. Then resubmit the fully revised manuscript.

Author Response

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

The introduction has been streamlined.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Must be improved

The cited references have been re-cited. Removed/added new articles

Is the research design appropriate?

Must be improved

research design was rewritten and updated

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

methods are re-described in a new section

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Results and discussion parts rewritten

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

The conclusion section has been separated from the results section

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The manuscript is poorly structured. Methods poorly described; results in the method section; results section without any discussion; and some discussions of the results are within the conclusion section.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Manuscript Structure:

We have restructured the manuscript to ensure a logical flow of information.

The methods are now described in detail, ensuring that all procedures, equipment, and analytical techniques are clearly explained. The results section has been revised to present findings clearly. A new discussion section has been created. We have transferred all interpretative content and discussion points from other sections to this new section. The conclusion section has been revised to concisely summarize the key findings and their significance without delving into detailed discussions.

Comments 2: Many problems with the references, figures, equations and tables.

Response 2: Agree. We have thoroughly reviewed and corrected all references to ensure they adhere to JMSE formatting guidelines. Inconsistencies and errors have been rectified, and all citations have been cross-checked for accuracy.The reference list has been updated to include all cited works, ensuring completeness and proper formatting. All figures have been revised for clarity and quality. The equations have been reviewed for accuracy and consistency. Tables have been reformatted to align with JMSE’s guidelines.

Comments 3: More details are missing regarding the mesh and boundary conditions used in the numerical modeling.

Response 3: Agree. This is a description of the new numerical model: The wind turbine tower's numerical model is constructed in Abaqus, utilizing beam elements for the structure. The rotor and nacelle mass are treated as a concentrated mass and applied to the top of the tower. A fixed support is implemented at the base of the structure. The approximate element size is 0.1m. Figure 9 illustrates the Abaqus model of the monopile offshore wind turbine tower.

Comments 4: The conclusions state that the manuscript presented two analytical methods (DDC and ISO). In fact, these methods are not explicitly described in the methods section. They are only cited in an example.

Response 4: Agree. The two analytical methods are explicitly described in the methods section.(section 5)

Comments 5: Equations for the Rayleigh proportional damping coefficients are presented based on a particular case (for only the first two natural and equal frequencies). If the analysis were carried out with more than two vibration modes, what would the coefficient expressions look like? The analysis is shown for two modes, but only one damping factor.

Response 5: According to relevant research, FLI is more likely to occur at the initial frequencies of the structure. This paper only analyzes the occurrence of FLI at the first two natural frequencies of the wind turbine. For the wind turbine, the first two natural frequencies correspond to the tower mode, so there is no additional calculation of the parameters of the higher-order modes of the wind turbine.

Comments 6: In the results section there are only figures and tables, with no discussion or comments on these graphical results.

Response 6: The results section has been rewritten and the description and discussionof the results section has been added.

Comments 7: The word "tower" should be added to the title. The scope of the vibration analysis only includes the tower.

Response 7: The title has been modified to add the word tower

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents an analysis process for fixed offshore wind turbine frequency lock in based on ductile damage-collapse mechanization, considering the probability of its occurrence. The following comments are for the authors of the paper.

Many acronyms used in the paper were not expanded the first time they appeared in the text; what is DDC method?

There are many types of wind turbine technologies, which wind turbine technology did the author employed in this study? What is the rating and parameters of the wind turbine?

A typical model system with detailed parameters and ratings of the components is required for easy replication of the study.

The presented results are not robust. Scenarios with and without ice loads for the various variables of the wind turbine should be presented.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language editing is required.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

The introduction has been streamlined.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Must be improved

The cited references have been re-cited. Removed/added new articles

Is the research design appropriate?

Must be improved

research design was rewritten and updated

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

methods are re-described in a new section

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Results and discussion parts rewritten

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

The conclusion section has been separated from the results section

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Many acronyms used in the paper were not expanded the first time they appeared in the text; what is DDC method?

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. A second chapter has now been added as a brief description of the DDC method. And they were expanded the first time they appeared in the text

Comments 2: There are many types of wind turbine technologies, which wind turbine technology did the author employed in this study? What is the rating and parameters of the wind turbine?

Response 2: Agree. The fan model information is described in section 6 of the new article. For more information, see table 6

Comments 3: A typical model system with detailed parameters and ratings of the components is required for easy replication of the study..

Response 3: The wind turbine tower used in this article comes from OC3 IEA Wind Task 23. It is a widely used wind turbine model, and the data can be obtained from the NREKL official website. And in Chapter 6 of this article, there is a detailed description of the wind turbine parameters.

Comments 4: The presented results are not robust. Scenarios with and without ice loads for the various variables of the wind turbine should be presented.

Response 4: This paper studies the behavior of fixed offshore wind turbines under sea ice. Therefore, only ice load is added as a single load for research. For other loads and ice loads acting together, this is our future research goal.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the language quality of our manuscript. We have conducted a detailed internal review to further refine the language and improve the overall readability of the manuscript. This includes revising complex sentences, improving the flow of information, and ensuring consistency in terminology. Specific sections that were identified as needing improvement have been rewritten for clarity.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text has been improved. However, the manuscript still needs corrections:

1) Almost all the references cited in the text do not agree with the references listed at the end of the manuscript. This is a serious problem that was reported in the first round and has not yet been corrected.

2) There is a lack of spaces between the number of sections, subsections, tables, figures and the following text. There are even sections beginning with lowercase letters. The authors should correct these errors.

3) Many figures are still too small and need to be improved for better visualization.

4) The title of section 6 needs to be revised.

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer TWO Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

The introduction has been streamlined, and most of it has been rewritten

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

The cited references have been re-cited, and added hyperlinks

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

The research design was rewritten and updated

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Adjusted the description of some methods in the methods section to make them more precise

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

The results and discussion parts have been re-segmented and rewritten.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

The conclusion section is divided into several points.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Almost all the references cited in the text do not agree with the references listed at the end of the manuscript. This is a serious problem that was reported in the first round and has not yet been corrected.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. All references have been cited again, and hyperlinks have been added

Comments 2: There is a lack of spaces between the number of sections, subsections, tables, figures and the following text. There are even sections beginning with lowercase letters. The authors should correct these errors

Response 2: Agree. We have thoroughly reviewed and corrected all contents.

Comments 3: Many figures are still too small and need to be improved for better visualization.

Response 3: Agree. The blurry image has been updated

	Comments 4: The title of section 6 needs to be revised
Response 4: Agree. The title of section 6 has been revised

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are no track changes in the revised paper for proper review.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language needs editing.

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer Three Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Must be improved	The introduction has been streamlined, and most of it has been rewritten
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Must be improved	The cited references have been re-cited, and added hyperlinks
Is the research design appropriate?	Must be improved	The research design was rewritten and updated
Are the methods adequately described?	Must be improved	Adjusted the description of some methods in the methods section to make them more precise
Are the results clearly presented?	Must be improved	The results and discussion parts have been re-segmented and rewritten.
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Must be improved	The conclusion section is divided into several points.
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: English language needs editing.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Specific sections that were particularly noted for language issues have been carefully revised to ensure they are clear and concise. We conducted an additional proofreading to catch any remaining errors and ensure the manuscript meets high language standards.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Problems with references and titles of section and subsections remain:

- The reference citation must be from the first author (for example, see [5] and [13]).

- If there is only one author, do not use "et al." (for example, see [4]).

- Sentence on lines 66 and 67 should be corrected..

- There are titles of subsections beginning with lowercase letters (e.g. see 3.1 and 3.2).

- Do the authors consider the title of section 6 to be appropriate?

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer TWO Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

The incorrect sentence has been deleted or modified. The incorrect citation format has been corrected.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Thank you for your affirmation

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Thank you for your affirmation

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Adjusted the description of some methods in the methods section to make them more precise

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thank you for your affirmation

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Thank you for your affirmation

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The reference citation must be from the first author (for example, see [5] and [13]).

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. All references have been cited from the first author.

Comments 2: If there is only one author, do not use "et al." (for example, see [4]).

Response 2: Agree. We have thoroughly reviewed and corrected all citations.

Comments 3: The sentence on lines 66 and 67 should be corrected.

Response 3: Agree. The inappropriate sentences have been deleted and modified.

Comments 4: There are titles of subsections beginning with lowercase letters (e.g. see 3.1 and 3.2)

Response 4: Agree. The titles of subsections have been modified.

Comments 5: Do the authors consider the title of section 6 to be appropriate?

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. The title of section 6 has been renamed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

None.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None.

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer Three Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Can be improved	The introduction has been streamlined, and most of it has been rewritten
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Can be improved	The cited references have been re-cited, and added hyperlinks
Is the research design appropriate?	Can be improved	The research design was rewritten and updated
Are the methods adequately described?	Can be improved	Adjusted the description of some methods in the methods section to make them more precise
Are the results clearly presented?	Can be improved	The results and discussion parts have been re-segmented and rewritten.
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Can be improved	The conclusion section is divided into several points.

Article Menu

Ice-Induced Vibration Analysis of Fixed-Bottom Wind Turbine Towers

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI