Test System Development and Experimental Study on the Fatigue of a Full-Scale Steel Catenary Riser

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper conducted some fatigue tests on steel catenary risers, hoses and subsea pipelines. This is a very good paper. It suggests for publication after the revise.

1- In lines 33,34,37, in the end of sentences, why “。” is used instead of “.”.

2- Please increase the quality of Fig. 3.

3- Bellow paper investigated the fatigue life in steel tubular welded structures. It should be cited and discussed.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0142112320302504

4- In Line 89, “An axial tension and pressure of 3000kN”. The unite of pressure can not be “kN”. Please revise. The authors can use “compression” instead of “pressure”.

5- In line 90 “a bending moment of 1300kN·m”. Is it in-plane bending or out of plane bending? Please mention it.

6- In line 89 and 90, how this load and moment are determined? Are the results depending to these values?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you. We were pleased to know that our work was rated as potentially acceptable for publication in JMSE, subject to adequate revision. We thank the reviewers for the time and effort that they have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Their suggestions have enabled us to improve our work. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Accordingly, we have uploaded a copy of the original manuscript with all the changes.

Appended to this letter is our point-by-point response to the comments raised by the reviewers. The comments are reproduced and our responses are given directly afterward in a different color (red).

We would like also to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript.

We hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication in JMSE.

Sincerely,

Wang.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript Test system development and experimental study on fatigue of full-scale steel catenary riser is interesting and useful.  Although the explanation of the research is superficial and sometimes ambiguous. Improvement is suggested as follows:
1. The most important issues of the article, i.e. most of the figures (Fig. 5-7), are not clear enough to be identified. Therefore the photographs are suggested to be displayed more clearly.
2. The procedure and conditions of the experiment are correctly described.
3. Results and discussion are mostly the description of experimental phenomena, lack of analysis, and the proportion of discussion is not enough, which can not fully reflect the author's scientific research ability.
4. The conclusions do not include clear conclusions on the assessment of the fatigue of the pipeline.
5. There are some English errors and some vague formulations and poor units of measurement that should be fixed before the work is ready for publication. The English language and style need to be improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you. We were pleased to know that our work was rated as potentially acceptable for publication in JMSE, subject to adequate revision. We thank the reviewers for the time and effort that they have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Their suggestions have enabled us to improve our work. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Accordingly, we have uploaded a copy of the original manuscript with all the changes.

Appended to this letter is our point-by-point response to the comments raised by the reviewers. The comments are reproduced and our responses are given directly afterward in a different color (red).

We would like also to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript.

We hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication in JMSE.

Sincerely,

Wang.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised paper is ready for publication. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your effort.

Sincerely,

Wang

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the efforts of the authors in implementing the changes. However, I still have a few remarks that the authors need to change:
1. Page 1, line 41: Should be: site [7,8]. - add space characters;
2. Page 1, line 42: Should be: [9,10] and - add space characters;
3. Page 1, line 42: Should be: [11–15] exist - add space characters;
4. Page 3, line 79: high-strength bolts - "high-strength bolts" is imprecise, You must to write mechanical and physical properties for metric bolts, e.g. 8.8, 9.8, 10.9, 12.9;
5. Page 5, line 108: Should be: MPa;
6. Page 5, line 116: Should be: loading system;
7. Page 7, line 184: outward or inward - please particularize;
8. Page 8, line 199: Then, the upper flange was rotated 90 degrees, reset, tightened with bolts, and put it into the loading shaft; then, the bending moment was applied to the specimen. - necessary linguistic correction;
9. Page 10, Table 2: Loading schedule ±150 mm - should be in one row;
10. Page 13, line 333: Should be: 200 MPa and 960 MPa;
If the above is properly changed, the manuscript can be accepted.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your effort. Appended to this letter is our point-by-point response to the comments. The comments are reproduced and our responses are given directly afterward in a different color (red). 

We hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication in JMSE.

Sincerely,

Wang.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf