An Integrated Approach for Failure Analysis of Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well written. I recommend accepting it after a minor revision.
- Line 31: Please indicate the specific time instead of "currently".
- There are too many background descriptions, please shorten it. In addition, Figure 1 is not necessary.
- In section 3, the authors introduced some theories for the developed method. However, I recommend adding a summary before them. That is, describe the function of various theories at the very beginning. Moreover, there are too many formulas in some theories, which is inconvenient to read. Authors can show some important formulas, and some details can be shown in the form of references or appendices.
Author Response
The paper is well written. I recommend accepting it after a minor revision.
Response: Many thanks for your insightful comments. We are really grateful to you that you have reviewed manuscript carefully, which helps a lot to improve the quality of the work. We provided detail response of your query in the following section. We strongly believe that the quality of the paper has been increased significantly after incorporating your valuable suggestions and feedback.
- Line 31: Please indicate the specific time instead of "currently".
Response: Thank you. The sentence is revised with specific time.
- There are too many background descriptions, please shorten it. In addition, Figure 1 is not necessary.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We shorted the size of the Introduction section and also removed Figure 1.
- In section 3, the authors introduced some theories for the developed method. However, I recommend adding a summary before them. That is, describe the function of various theories at the very beginning. Moreover, there are too many formulas in some theories, which is inconvenient to read. Authors can show some important formulas, and some details can be shown in the form of references or appendices.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments to improve the quality of the manuscript. We added a summary of the methods right after Section 3.
We also tried to remove some content from the methodology section. However, we believe the equations are necessary to reproduce the results. We also included the data and step by step analysis in appendix so that the readers can reproduce the methodology and the study.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper uses an analytic hierarchy process combined with a decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory method and evaluates risks involved in natural gas pipeline distribution network in Canada. The current work can be published once all these minor comments are addressed in a revised version:
1-Line 47: “KPa” is correct.
2-Line 110: “Compared” is correct.
3-Fig. 2: needs improved quality.
4-Line 250 and similar: (Si) should be italic, insert space between set and brackets.
5-Fig. 4: needs improved quality.
6-Fig. 12: should be a table?
7-The authors should add a statement (in abstract or conclusion) about the novelty of the current work in light of the existing studies.
Author Response
The paper uses an analytic hierarchy process combined with a decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory method and evaluates risks involved in natural gas pipeline distribution network in Canada. The current work can be published once all these minor comments are addressed in a revised version:
Response: Many thanks for your inspirations and positive evaluation. We believe that your advice and comments help us to improve the quality of the work. We have tried to modify the manuscript based on your suggestions and comments. Please see the each reply with actual modification.
1-Line 47: “KPa” is correct.
Response: Thanks. Corrected.
2-Line 110: “Compared” is correct.
Response: Thanks. Corrected.
3-Fig. 2: needs improved quality.
Response: Thanks. Figure 2 (New Figure 1) is improved.
4-Line 250 and similar: (Si) should be italic, insert space between set and brackets.
Response: Thanks. Corrected.
5-Fig. 4: needs improved quality.
Response: Thanks. Figure 4 (New Figure 3) is improved.
6-Fig. 12: should be a table?
Response: Thanks. Figure 12 is replaced with Table 17.
7-The authors should add a statement (in abstract or conclusion) about the novelty of the current work in light of the existing studies.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. The contribution of this study is summarized in Conclusions section.
