Oil Onshore Pipeline Quantitative Risk Assessment under Fire and Explosion Scenarios
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
While the manuscript is fairly clearly written, the primary point of novelty or development appears to be the application of standard QRA methodology to oil pipelines.
However, there is very little indication of the associated challenges and differentiation from typical standard application. Can the authors better explain the challenges and novelty of the work?
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript aims to propose an approach for developing a quantitative risk assessment in onshore oil pipelines. The authors focused on implementing individual and societal indexes, seeking to support further comparisons with risk acceptability criteria.
I leave the evaluation of the focus of the article and its acceptance to the journal to the editor. Based on the Aims & Scope of the journal I recommended publishing the manuscript in a different journal, for example, Safety (mdpi)
I appreciate the well-structured and clearly evaluated risk assessment. The manuscript could provide a good scientific contribution to practice.
During the revision I found some grammatical errors which should be corrected before publishing:
L. 18: of the length (consider adding an article)
L. 30: or the subject (they don´t seem to fit this context)
L. 33: the environment (missing article)
L. 34: relatively (consider replacing)
L. 38: The transportation (missing article)
L. 46: insights into
L. 53: at these databases (incorrect preposition)
L. 61: consider changing the verb are with is
L. 67: the decision-making (missing article)
L. 108: misspelled word: design
L. 128: the literature (missing article)
L. 141: provides
L. 154: the ignition (missing article)
L. 188: as a point source (missing article)
L. 204: involve
L. 223: hazard (singular)
L. 240: a low number ((missing article)
L. 289: and form a pool
L. 402: misspelled word: of
L. 474: establish
I also advise extending the discussion by comparing the results with other researchers who dealt with similar risk easements (case studies) to highlight the contribution of a possible application into practice.
Also, to ensure the reliability of results it is necessary to obtain more reliable information on the operation of the pipeline and historical data on failures from reports.
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. How to distinguish the jet fire and pool fire in this study?
2. Why didn’t the jet fires model consider the formation of soot?
3. Please explain the thermal dose in scenarios where the failure size is 0.0020 of Table 8.
4. How do these assumptions in this study affect the analysis of results?
5. This research proposes an approach for developing a quantitative risk assessment in oil onshore pipelines. 6. I think the topic relevant in the field. Although the study provides some data and references for the field, the applicability of the findings has yet to be verified. 7. This research helps to support decisions from a risk perspective using individual and societal risk indicators for oil onshore pipelines. 8. The research makes assumptions in its analysis. What are the differences between these assumptions and the actual situation? In the further research and analysis, attention should be paid to the connection with the actual situation to improve the objectivity of the research results. 9. If this research can add more fire scenes for comparative analysis of data, the results of this research will be more convincing. 10. Overall, the references are appropriate. 11. The figures in this research are relatively crude and should be updated to be more academic.
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for the additional updates to the Introduction to further highlight the novelty. I have no further comments.
