Elevation Calculation of Bottom Deck Based on Stochastic Process and Compound Distribution
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Many thanks to the author for the very interesting paper which I thoroughly enjoyed reading.
The following improvements would be recommended:
- Abstract: for good practice, please fully spell acronyms (API and EED in the abstract) at their first appearance. API is also used in the intro for instance, but will only be defined in line 101.
- A reference for the API specification (line 52) would be valuable.
- Is there any rationale behind the 1.5m clearance (line 58)? Beyond the API guidelines, what is the relevance and significance of this values in this context, and how safe is it?
- Please provide reference for the 'relevant standards' (line 86). Applies to other similar cases (eg DEP standard on line 88)
- A reference for the data in line 217 would be appreciated for the purpose of further work (if publically available)
- Line 223: 'figure 3- 1 and 3-2', discrepency in labelling of figure (remove space in 3- 1?)
- For clarity, add legend (black line and ref markers) for figures 3-1 and 3-2
- Abstract and intro refer to EED-1, but the rest of the paper to EED-I. Could you clarify?
- Table 5: issue with display of 'return period (year)'
- Line 278: remove space after 6
- Line 280 and 281: there should be a space between the quantity and its units,as done in line 279 (applies to the rest of the paper)
- Line 317 should finish with full stop
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents an interesting and actual topic, demonstrating that, considering the correlation between the wave height and water depth it is possible to assess with higher accuracy the deck height of an offshore platform. However, several issues shall be addressed before the acceptance of the paper.
- The introduction is very long. It is suggested to split it into a more concise introduction and a literature review section.
- In the paper, most symbols and notations have not been introduced. Please define each symbol when appearing the first time, e.g. σ, α, θ, Dn, D0, ξ, μ.
- The EED-I probability density is the only one presented in the theoretical model. However, several other distributions are cited and employed. It might be useful to recall them at least in the literature review section.
- The computational process leading to the presented results on the test platform is not clearly presented. Please, describe in more detail in the theoretical model section the applied approaches that are compared in the results section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
All the issues have been addressed in a satisfactory manner. The reviewer suggests accepting the manuscript for publication in the current form
