Research on Main Engine Power of Transport Ship with Different Bows in Ice Area According to EEDI Regulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1) The abstract is written poorly, and it must be rewritten. Some examples from the current abstract:

In order to evaluate the main engine power of ships in different 12 stages of EEDI of ships with different bow forms.

This article is aimed at the main engine power of the ship, the research model test was carried out using three different bow forms with the same main dimensions: the first used EEDI type bow, the second used traditional icebreaking bow, and the last used semi bow.

 

2) Please avoid using abbreviations within the abstract.

 

3) The manuscript must be proofread by a native English speaker. There are a lot of errors within the manuscript text.

 

4) Introduction part of the manuscript lacks a proper review regarding the ship energy efficiency. The authors have only cited two journal articles papers. The proper literature review is required. Therefore, the authors must provide detail literature review regarding the investigated topic. The authors can cite several review/research articles regarding the reduction of CO₂ emissions from ships, such as:

Xing, H., Spence, S., & Chen, H. (2020). A comprehensive review on countermeasures for CO2 emissions from ships. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 134, 110222.

Farkas, A., Degiuli, N., Martić, I., & Vujanović, M. (2021). Greenhouse gas emissions reduction potential by using antifouling coatings in a maritime transport industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 295, 126428.

Balcombe, P., Brierley, J., Lewis, C., Skatvedt, L., Speirs, J., Hawkes, A., & Staffell, I. (2019). How to decarbonise international shipping: Options for fuels, technologies and policies. Energy conversion and management, 182, 72-88.

 

 

5) Introduction part of the manuscript lacks a proper review regarding the ice breaking resistance. The authors can cite several review/research articles regarding the ice breaking resistance, such as:

Wang, F., Zhou, L., Zou, Z. J., Song, M., Wang, Y., & Liu, Y. (2019). Study of continuous icebreaking process with cohesive element method. Brodogradnja, 70(3), 93-114

Li, H., Feng, Y., Ong, M. C., Zhao, X., & Zhou, L. (2021). An Approach to Determine Optimal Bow Configuration of Polar Ships under Combined Ice and Calm-Water Conditions. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 9(6), 680.

Erceg, S., & Ehlers, S. (2017). Semi-empirical level ice resistance prediction methods. Ship technology research, 64(1), 1-14.

 

6) The novelty of the work must be clearly addressed and discussed, compare your research with existing research findings and highlight novelty. The authors did not present what is the novelty of their work within the introduction section.

 

7) Research gap must be delivered on more clear way with directed necessity for the conducted research work.

 

8) The main objective of the work must be written on the clearer way at the end of introduction section.

 

9) Materials and methods – The authors have written: The calculation methods of ship static water resistance mainly include empirical formula method and computational fluid dynamics calculation method (CFD). The ship resistance is usually derived using either towing tank measurements or CFD approach. Empirical formulas are only used within the preliminary design stage.

 

10) What is ship numerical pool simulation?

 

11) The authors must apply nomenclature which is commonly applied in the field of naval architecture and marine engineering. Therefore, effective power is P_E, and ship total resistance is R_T. The authors are encouraged to check the ITTC nomenclature list, which can be found https://ittc.info/media/9882/alphabetic-ittc-symbols-list-2021.pdf

 

12) Equation (2) – What is R_CH?

 

13) Equation (3) – whar is R_C?

 

14) All physical quantities must be written in italic.

 

15) The authors must explain parameters and physical quantities within the equation (5).

 

16) Additional information is required regarding the design of three bow types. How did the authors design those bows?

 

17) Additional information is required regarding the performed CFD simulations. The authors must provide details regarding the mesh, numerical setup and mathematical model. In its current form, the research performed by the authors cannot be reproduced by other researchers.

 

18) How did the authors determine sufficient mesh and time step size?

 

19) The authors are encouraged to perform validation study regarding their prediction of total resistance.

 

20) Figure 10 – This figure must be properly cited.

 

21) Line 290 – Table X?

 

22) Line 300 – Figure X?

 

23) The section 5. should be renamed into Conclusion

 

24) A plan for a future work should be provided in more detail and discussed in the conclusion section.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment for specific reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the power of the main engine was calculated to evaluate whether the power of the ice navigation ship is satisfied when EEDI requirements are applied and three ships with different bow shapes are compared. The paper needs extensive editing of the English language and style. My other comments and suggestions are given below.

1. The abstract needs extensive English editing.
2. In the abstract, it is stated: "Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Code (FSICR)"; isn't it Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules?
3. Lines 75-76 - Abbreviations PC1-5 and PC6-7 are used; please briefly explain.
4. Line 77 - abbreviation FSIR is used but not written in full (maybe it should be typed as FSICR); also, please pay attention when typing names: Lindqvist is typed as "Lingvist".
5. Lines 82-83 - Sentence is hard to follow; please restructure it.
6. Line 89 - It is stated: "The impact is also greater."; which impact?
7. Between lines 116 and 117, there is a table without a caption and an introduction in the text.
8. In line 128, several coefficients are mentioned; please shortly elaborate on them.
9. Section 2 ends up with the EEDI formula; also, the formula elements are not elaborated.
10. Table 1 was not introduced in the text before appearance.
11. Figure 1 was not introduced in the text before appearance.
12. Line 169 - It is stated: "In open water conditions the carrier will be operated at loaded water line."; the carrier should be the ship?
13. Table 2 was not introduced in the text before appearance.
14. Figure 2 was not introduced in the text before appearance.
15. Table 3 was not introduced in the text before appearance.
16. Figure 3 was not introduced in the text before appearance.
17. Line 190-191 - Please restructure the sentence: " Figure 4 can see the fluid grid area and density drawn in this paper, and Figure 5 can
    see the surface wave height diagram under the calculation of static water conditions".
18. Line 200 - Abbreviation "FSIR" is mentioned; should it be FSICR?
19. In figures 6, 7, 8 and 9, the word "required" is mistyped as "reauired".
20. Figures 6d, 7d, 8d and 9d do not have captions.
21. Line 260 - It is stated: "(Red means dissatisfaction, green means satisfaction)." Please restructure the sentence.
22. After Line 279, Figure 10 appears without introducing it in the text, and formula elements were explained after Figure 10.
23. Line 290 - it is stated: "are shown in Table X." Please rectify.
24. Line 291 - Again Figure 10?
25. Tables 5 and 6 were not introduced in the text before appearance.
26. Figure 11 was not introduced in the text before appearance.
27. Line 300 - It is stated: "It can be seen from Figure X that through..."; please replace "X" with a number.
28. Are there any limitations in the research?
29. Could the results of this research be used in practice? How? Do you have any proposals?

I hope that my comments and suggestions will help to improve your paper.

 

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment for specific reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have answered to all my questions.

Author Response

Thank you for your recognition of this article, and also for your comments on this manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made an effort and revised the paper according to reviewers' instructions. However, there are still some areas in need of improvement. My comments and suggestions are given below.

1. Line 55 - it is stated: "subject to the Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Code (FSICR)"; shouldn't it be Rules instead of Code, as the abbreviation suggests?
2. Line 58 - it is stated: "the ice class of IA"; shouldn't it be 1A?
3. Lines 78-79 - it is stated: "Erceg[15] studied 6 different semi-empirical formulas based on predecessors and applied them to 4 Calculations are carried out on the bow..."; please check and correct these sentences - or sentence.
4. Lines 85-90 - it is stated: "When sailing in ice for EEDI provisions under the different stages of emissions whether meet the requirements of the ship is the focus of many shipping companies, but now few people regard it as a research object, this part of this paper on the basis of predecessors' research on EEDI, Consider the impact on the main engine power before and after the ship-following, the final judgment under the different stages of EEDI host power of seaworthiness of the ship." It seems that this is only one sentence, and it is challenging to follow it. Please consider restructuring it.
5. Line 142 - please confirm the accuracy of the statements: "R_C is the bending resistance, R_B is the bending resistance,".
6. Line 155 - it is stated: "The EEDI [17] is calculated using Equation 5,", please confirm the accuracy of this statement.
7. Line 160 - it is stated: "For the explanation of the specific parameters of formula 5,"; shouldn't it be another formula?
8. Line 250 - Shouldn't it be "Table 8" instead of "Table 5"?
9. Line 273-274 - it is stated: "Figure 8. Power of 1A super (In Figure 9:I2:
   Ice Bow Phase 2; I3:Ice Bow Phase 3; S2: Semi Bow Phase 2; S3: Semi Bow Phase 3; E2: EEDI Bow Phase 2; E3: EEDI Bow Phase 3.); please explain; it is difficult to follow.
10. There is no Figure 9, only Figures 8 and 10.
11. Figure 12 - there is still a misspelling of the word "required" as "reauired"; please rectify.
12. Line 332 - it is stated: "sailing in ice regions is judged under...", in my opinion, it would be prudent to replace the word judged with some other word, maybe estimated or something similar?
13. Figure 14 is not introduced in the text before appearance.
14. Lines 370-371 - it is stated: "EEDI is a mandatory requirement for carbon dioxide emissions from ships proposed by the IMO.", please restructure the sentence (EEDI is a technical measure for reducing CO₂ emissions from ships).

I hope that my comments will be helpful.

Author Response

Please find the specific modification suggestions in the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

It seems that the authors revised their paper according to suggestions and comments. All my comments were addressed, and I have only one small suggestion given below.

1. Line 253 - it is stated: "In Figure 8-10", shouldn't it be "8-11", since Figure 11 presents the power of 1C ice class ships?

 

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Research on main engine power of transport ship with differ-ent bows in ice area based on EEDI rules”. Those comments are very valuable and helpful for us to improve this paper, as well as our future researches. We have studied all comments carefully and have made modification to address the comments. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main modification in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:

 

Reviewer #:

Line 253 - it is stated: "In Figure 8-10", shouldn't it be "8-11", since Figure 11 presents the power of 1C ice class ships?

Reply: Thank you for pointing out the error, it has been modified.

Revise：In Figure 8-11.

Finally, thank the reviewers for their valuable comments, and also thank the editors for their hard work.

Yours Sincerely,

Zhuhao Gu