Risk assessment of sea ice disasters on fixed jacket platforms in Liaodong Bay

Xu, Ning; Yuan, Shuai; Liu, Xueqin; Ma, Yuxian; Shi, Wenqi; Zhang, Dayong

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-1107-2020

Articles | Volume 20, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-1107-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-1107-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 20, issue 4

Research article

|

24 Apr 2020

Research article |

| 24 Apr 2020

Risk assessment of sea ice disasters on fixed jacket platforms in Liaodong Bay

Ning Xu, Shuai Yuan, Xueqin Liu, Yuxian Ma, Wenqi Shi, and Dayong Zhang

Download

Final revised paper (published on 24 Apr 2020)
Preprint (discussion started on 17 Dec 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of Risk assessment of sea ice disasters on fixed jacket platforms in the Liaodong Bay', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Feb 2019
- AC1: 'Response to Anonymous Referee #1', Ning Xu, 29 Mar 2019
RC2: 'Comments to manuscript "Risk assessment of sea ice disasters on fixed jacket platforms in the Liaodong Bay"', Shunying Ji, 23 Feb 2019
- AC2: 'Response to Reviewer #2 Porf. Ji', Ning Xu, 29 Mar 2019
- AC3: 'Response to Reviewer #2 Porf. Ji', Ning Xu, 29 Mar 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (21 May 2019) by Heidi Kreibich

Dear Ning Xu, Shuai Yuan, Xueqin Liu, Yuxian Ma, Wenqi Shi, and Dayong Zhang,

Thank you for the submission of your manuscript “Risk assessment of sea ice disasters on fixed jacket platforms in the Liaodong Bay”.

As you know, two reviewers have now provided detailed reviews, which you have replied to. One reviewer recommends major, one reviewer minor revisions. Since some of the revisions suggested are major and may take some time, I decide on major revision. I would like to invite you to submit a revised version of your manuscript.

Would you please also provide an ‘author’s reply’ to the reviewers (feel free to use similar words that you used in what you have already uploaded). Please can you also include a track changes document between the old manuscript and the new one (you can include this as part of your ‘author’s reply’).

In summary and addition to the suggestions from the reviewers, I would like to note the following:

(a) NOVELTY OF YOUR STUDY. Your research on sea ice disasters is interesting and very relevant from a practical point of few. Please try to strengthen the description of its scientific novelty. This needs to be done both at the beginning so we understand, but also in discussion, telling us ‘why should someone outside of your study area be interested in the results’. If you were to explain the results of your case study to someone in another country, what would they gain from your study? What is novel and what might they learn?

(b) BROADER CONTEXT OF YOUR STUDY. You do not relate your work to the broader international literature of what others have done. We need to understand this broader context and what others have done.

(c) USE OF REFERENCES. In many places you cite facts, information, or ideas, but without supporting sources as to where those ideas or facts came from. All facts and information, that are not common knowledge, need to have citations (which are then put into the reference list) and all items in the reference list should be cited at least once in the manuscript.

(e) ENGLISH. Although your manuscript will undergo a copy editing at the final stage, there are sentences in your manuscript which one cannot follow well due to the issues of English. I suggest an improvement of the English language.

(f) GENERAL TECHNICAL FORMATTING. I encourage you to examine carefully the NHESS author guidelines for formatting available online at: https://www.natural-hazards-and-earth-system-sciences.net/for_authors/manuscript_preparation.html.

I look forward to seeing the next version of your manuscript which I will then send out for further review to either the previous reviewers (if they agree) or new reviewers.

Best Regards
Heidi Kreibich

Hide

AR by Ning Xu on behalf of the Authors (02 Jul 2019) Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (04 Aug 2019) by Heidi Kreibich

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (05 Aug 2019)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (03 Sep 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

This manuscript presents a methodology for assessing the relative risk among a group of offshore structures, subject to demands from sea ice. The relative risk is assessed using an index system that the manuscript attempts to develop. I think the concept being presented is worthy of publication, but the manuscript needs revision and further development.

-Grammar needs to be corrected throughout the paper.

-Technical discussion needs to be worded in state-of-the-art terms. For example: "When the overall deformation of a structure exceeds its allowable deformation under extreme ice force, structural stiffness failure occurs." While I follow the meaning of the sentence, it is worded awkwardly and is not consistent with the current state of practice in structural engineering. Another example would be "ice pile climbing." What is meant by this?

-The authors should explain how the index will be used in practice. It appears to result in a relative description of risk and not an absolute measure. How will that description be used?

-the discussion of dynamics is probably more detailed than is need for this paper. Explanation of when higher modes are considered is probably all that is required.

-The 0.5 exponent on V4 appears to be arbitrary. Why was that value chosen? Does it have significance?

-Line 12: It was stated that a 100-year return interval was chosen because the structure has a 100-year design life. These two design criterion do not correlate.

-For Table 3, the division between the rows needs to be better defined. It is not clear where one row start and stops, vertically.

-It is stated in the text that Table 4 summarizes relative structural deformation for buildings. How do we know these drift limits are applicable to offshore jacketed structures?

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (16 Sep 2019) by Heidi Kreibich

Dear Ning Xu, Shuai Yuan, Xueqin Liu, Yuxian Ma, Wenqi Shi, and Dayong Zhang,

Thank you for revising your manuscript “Risk assessment of sea ice disasters on fixed jacket platforms in the Liaodong Bay”.

The manuscript has improved, however, it is still not up to international standard and needs further improvement. One reviewer has provided very helpful suggestions how to further improve the manuscript. Additionally, please consider my comments below, which you apparently have ignored for your revision.
I would like to invite you to submit a revised version of your manuscript.
Would you please also provide an ‘author’s reply’ to the reviewer. Please can you also include a track changes document between the old manuscript and the new one (you can include this as part of your ‘author’s reply’).

In summary and addition to the suggestions from the reviewers, I would like to note the following:

(a) NOVELTY OF YOUR STUDY. Your research on sea ice disasters is interesting and very relevant from a practical point of few. Please try to strengthen the description of its scientific novelty. This needs to be done both at the beginning so we understand, but also in discussion, telling us ‘why should someone outside of your study area be interested in the results’. If you were to explain the results of your case study to someone in another country, what would they gain from your study? What is novel and what might they learn?

(b) BROADER CONTEXT OF YOUR STUDY. You do not relate your work to the broader international literature of what others have done. We need to understand this broader context and what others have done.

(e) ENGLISH. Although your manuscript will undergo a copy editing at the final stage, there are sentences in your manuscript which one cannot follow well due to the issues of English. I suggest an improvement of the English language.

(f) GENERAL TECHNICAL FORMATTING. I encourage you to examine carefully the NHESS author guidelines for formatting available online at: https://www.natural-hazards-and-earth-system-sciences.net/for_authors/manuscript_preparation.html.

I look forward to seeing the next version of your manuscript which I will then send out for further review to either the previous reviewers (if they agree) or new reviewers.

Best Regards
Heidi Kreibich

Hide

AR by Ning Xu on behalf of the Authors (11 Nov 2019) Author's response

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (27 Nov 2019) by Heidi Kreibich

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (07 Jan 2020)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (11 Jan 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

This research paper has developed an efficient risk assessment system for the sea ice disasters on fixed jacket platforms. The investigation has great practical relevance and could be potentially used in safety analysis or estimation for structures facing sea ice disasters. The paper is generally well written but several points can be further improved:
1) Page 2 line 24: There is an additional “,” after 2014.
2) Figure 1 title: There is an additional “(”.
3) Figure 2: One should change the order of sub-figure (e) and (d).
4) Page 5 line 6: The reference “Zhang et al., 2007” should be “Zhang and Li, 2007”?
5) Page 5 line 20: Note the index “H” in “the hazard index (H)” should be italic.
6) Page 6: From line 1 to 12, the positions of Equations 1-3 are not in the correct place in the text. One must put the equation directly after the text where the equation is mentioned.
7) Page 6, line 16-19: “Sea ice disasters have three major risk sources … and four structural risk modes …” The author should give the reference for this.
8) In general, the equations are not in the same format. Note the blank spaces in front of the equations are different.
9) In general, many index/sign used in equations are repeated. It is suggested one use different indexes/signs for different parameters or at least give them different subscripts.
10) Page 7, line 6-7: Note the subscript of “F_H”. Should “H” be italic or not?
11) Page 7, line 17: “After floe is applied on a structure and then broken, if broken ice is not removed in time due to structural blockage, ice accumulates”. “floe” is a typo? Also one must rephrase the whole sentence.
12) Table 2: It should be “MPa”.
13) Page 11, line 7: “… are respectively set to be 1 and 2” why does the author use these parameter values? Any reference?
14) Page 11, line 24: “Ka” is not in the right format. Also one must provide reference why 0.5 is selected for main platforms and 1.0 is selected for auxiliary platforms.
15) Page 12, line 4: “V1” correct in format? Line 7 the reference should be “Yue et al., 2007b”. Line 8: Acceleration “A” should be italic.
16) Page 12, line 22: “… such as the bollard are respectively set to be 1.5, 1.2, and 1.0” why? Any reference?
17) Page 12, line 25: “M3” is not in the right format.
18) Page 19, line 17: what are “level ice” and “rafted ice” and the difference between their parameters? Can one give more detailed explanation?
19) Page 20, line 15: The author must keep the reference format consistent. For example, for the page number the sign “1-70” is in different formats.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (23 Jan 2020) by Heidi Kreibich

AR by Ning Xu on behalf of the Authors (04 Feb 2020) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

Sea ice disasters seriously threaten the safety of oil platforms in the Bohai Sea. Therefore, it...