Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript addressed the interesting issues of modeling bio-colonisation on mooring lines. The manuscript is well organized and the results are clearly presented. However, there is one minor concern:

The manuscript emphasized the strategy is based on qualifying sea state(QSS) for offshore floating wind turbines. It's not clear though what the QSS is for offshore floating wind turbines (FWT). What is the criteria of QSS for FWT? A great portion of the references in the manuscript are based on FPUs other than FWTs. Will the theory be applicable since the mooring lines of FWTs may have much smaller diameter than traditional FPUs?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I first warmly thank you for having reviewed the paper.

Concerning your remarks:

Point 1: "The manuscript emphasized the strategy is based on qualifying sea state(QSS) for offshore floating wind turbines. It's not clear though what the QSS is for offshore floating wind turbines (FWT). What is the criteria of QSS for FWT?"

Response 1: I add the following sentences in the introduction of section 2.2: "A calm sea state is now considered as a Qualifying Sea State (QSS) for bio-colonisation. This QSS is theoretically defined as a sea state for which the influence of bio-colonisation mass in the tension of the mooring line is greater than the one of each environmental parameter. It is presumed that such a sea state is a calm sea state, meaning low intensity of environmental parameters. This point will be further investigated in future works."

The location of these sentences is highlighted in yellow in the attached PDF of the previous version.

Point 2 : "A great portion of the references in the manuscript are based on FPUs other than FWTs."

Response 2: FWTs are recent devices compared to FPUs. A great portion of data about bio-colonisation on subsea structures is then coming from the O&G industry.

Point 3: "Will the theory be applicable since the mooring lines of FWTs may have much smaller diameter than traditional FPUs?"

Response 3: I add the following paragraph at the beginning of section 2.2.1: "It is first to be noted that a FWT has been preferred to a Floating Production Unit (FPU) for the application of the methodology. FWTs intend to be installed in shallower water and closer to the shore than FPUs are, with relatively smaller mooring lines diameter. For all these reasons, it is believed that bio-colonisation mass will be higher on FWT proportionally to the mooring length and volume. In this paper, the proposed methodology is thus intended for FWTs."

The location of this paragraph is highlighted in orange in the attached PDF of the previous version.

Kind Regards,

Benjamin DECUREY

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Model of Bio-Colonisation on Mooring Lines:
Updating Strategy based on a Static Qualifying Sea
State for Floating Wind Turbines

 

The authors have done a great research work and have even taken care of the details of the manuscript. For me the paper can be published with the suggestion of style that one tries to avoid writing in the first person, e.g. We ...

"we" is used 118 times throughout the document, so my recommendation is for minor revisions, as it is an important job to correct this aspect. But this does not affect the quality of the work

 

In references, authors should not be capitalized according to the style guidelines of the journal. This detail should be done now or in the editing process if the paper is finally published.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I first warmly thank you for having reviewed the paper.

Concerning your remarks:

Point 1: "For me the paper can be published with the suggestion of style that one tries to avoid writing in the first person, e.g. We ... "we" is used 118 times throughout the document, so my recommendation is for minor revisions, as it is an important job to correct this aspect."

Response 1: The regular use of "we" in the manuscript is due to a predilection to use the direct style instead of the indirect one. After a review of the English language by a native American speaker, corrections have been carried out. They are highlighted in green in the attached PDF of the previous version. An effort has been made to change some of the "we" (direct style) in indirect style. 

Point 2: "In references, authors should not be capitalized according to the style guidelines of the journal. This detail should be done now or in the editing process if the paper is finally published".

Response 2: It has been changed in the new version.

Kind Regards,

Benjamin DECUREY