Structural Design of the Substructure of a 10 MW Floating Offshore Wind Turbine System Using Dominant Load Parameters

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is more like a case study using commercial FEA software, which is lack of innovation. Moreover, the correctness and accuracy of the FEA results is hard to be determined without other evidence. 

In my opinion, this paper is not qualified for JMSE.

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors address the structural design of a floating platform, a topic in which few publications exist.

On page 2 the authors mention that 5832 cases combining different parameters need to be considered. I find this strange and believe that much fewer cases need to be examined representing characteristic extreme situations and avoiding many cases in between.

The hydrodynamic loading is calculated by AQWA and the finite element code is ABACUS. The authors should describe in more in detail how they deal with this transfer of data.

The results of the analysis are given in Table 14 resulting that in two cases the calculated value of maximum stresses was higher than the permissible stresses. The paper stops abruptly there and there is no clue about what to do with the design

A proper closure of the paper is thus missing

On a more editorial aspect the following comments are provided:

The authors should avoid using “etc” in their sentences mainly in the introduction. They should just state what they consider relevant a terminate instead of adding etc.

Equations are part of the text and equation numbers are used only after the equations are written. This should be applied to equation 1, where the description of the variable should come after instead of before the equation. Similar comments apply to other equations

generally acceptable

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This study deals with the structural design of substructure of a 10 MW floating offshore wind turbine system using dominant load parameters. The content is suitable to publish in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. The manuscript was well written. The reviewer has some comments as follows:

1) The title should be “Structural design of substructure of a 10 MW floating offshore wind turbine system using dominant load parameters”.

2) The literature review needs to be supplemented.

3) The novelty and contribution of the study need to be clarified in the introduction.

4) In section 2, a figure with detailed dimensions of the wind turbine must be added.

5) For the ULS design, what design standard is used? Please clarify.

6) As shown in Figure 3, ANSYS software was used to analyze the frequency response for the hydrodynamic model; and ABAQUS was used to analyze the structure for the finite element model. Why must this study use 2 software with the same features? Please explain.

7) This study’s results were from finite element analysis. How to verify the results in order to prove their reliability?

8) In section 5, the results need to be analyzed, assessed and discussed.

9) English needs to be re-checked and polished.

English needs to be re-checked and polished.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

after the revision, this paper can be accepted.

the writing is acceptable.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been revised following the reviewer’s comments.

The manuscript has been revised following the reviewer’s comments.