Cross-Scale Reliability Analysis Framework for LNG Storage Tanks Considering Concrete Material Uncertainty

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Point 1: Abstract

1.      Clarify the Contribution: While the abstract mentions the proposed strategies, it could elaborate a bit more on the unique contribution of this study compared to existing methods. For example, how does the dual acceleration strategy improve upon previous approaches to reliability analysis in LNG tanks?

2.      Highlight Practical Implications: Emphasize the practical implications of the findings. How might the outcomes of this study influence real-world LNG tank design or safety protocols? Adding a sentence on potential applications would enhance the abstract's significance.

3.      Improve Readability: To improve readability, consider breaking down some longer sentences for easier comprehension. Additionally, utilize transition words to create smoother connections between ideas.

4.      Engage the Reader: End the abstract with a strong concluding sentence that reaffirms the significance of the study's findings and their implications for the field of LNG tank design.

Point 2: Introduction

1.      Conciseness: While providing historical context about accidents related to LNG is important, try condensing this information without losing its impact. For instance, the reference to the Algerian incident could be more concise while still emphasizing the severity and consequences.

2.      Organizing References: The section that discusses prior research could be better structured. Grouping the studies based on specific aspects they cover (like material mechanics, reliability modeling, or structural analysis) could improve readability.

3.      Transitions and Flow: Enhance the flow between paragraphs by incorporating smoother transitions to connect various ideas. For example, transition sentences could help link the discussions on previous research to the methodology and objectives of the current study.

4.      Focusing the Objectives: The introduction covers a broad range of prior studies related to LNG, but it might benefit from more explicitly stating the gap in research that the current study aims to address. Clarify precisely how this study intends to contribute to the existing body of knowledge.

5.      Organization and Preview: The structure and preview of subsequent sections are well-defined, but summarizing the objectives and anticipated contributions within the introduction might help readers understand the study's scope and importance more efficiently.

Point 3: An overview of LNG storage tank reliability analysis framework based on asymp

1.      Practical Examples or Case Studies: Consider integrating a brief example or case study illustrating the application of the proposed methodology in analyzing an LNG storage tank. This would demonstrate how the method works in a practical scenario, aiding readers' understanding.

2.      Emphasize Significance: Elaborate more on the significance of the proposed framework in relation to existing methods. Explain how this methodology fills a gap or improves upon current approaches in LNG storage tank reliability analysis.

3.      Transitions and Flow: Enhance the flow between paragraphs by using transition sentences to link different ideas and sections. Smooth transitions help readers follow the logical progression of the concepts presented.

4.      Clarify Methodology Steps: Ensure the step-by-step methodology is explicitly outlined, making it easier for readers to follow along. Break down complex processes into clear, sequential steps to facilitate understanding.

5.      Final Recap in Conclusion: In the conclusion of this section, briefly recap the main points and the anticipated impact of the proposed framework, reiterating its significance for reliability analysis of LNG storage tanks.

Point 4: Concrete material modeling and analysis considering material uncertainty

1.      Connection between Sections*: Establish a smoother transition between the subsections (3.1, 3.2, 3.3) to ensure the flow of the modeling process, analysis technique, and structural analysis is seamless and logical..

2.      Elaborate on Results: The section concludes with results (Figures 10 and 11), but it might be helpful to offer a brief interpretation or discussion of these findings to connect them back to the methodology used earlier.

3.      Please adjust font of Figure 7 to make it clearer. It is also similar to Figures 10 and 11.

4.      Integration of Case Study: Consider integrating a brief example or case study to illustrate the practical application of the methodology described, reinforcing the methodology's efficacy in a real-world scenario.

5.      Summarize Methodology's Importance: Emphasize the significance of the methodology proposed in this section in the broader context of LNG storage tank analysis.

Point 5: Reliability analysis of LNG storage tank

1.      Clarification of Interpretations: While the figures demonstrate relationships and prediction errors, the text could further elaborate on the significance of these findings. Describe how these predictive accuracies impact real-world applications or structural design considerations.

2.      Expanded Discussion on Failure Modes: The discussion about failure probabilities focuses on displacement and stress failures. It might be beneficial to delve deeper into the implications of these failure modes in practical engineering terms, potentially offering recommendations for design improvements based on these findings.

Point 6: Conclusion

1.      Specificity in Impact: While the conclusion broadly discusses the implications of the study, consider providing more specific insights into how these findings could influence practical engineering decisions or industry standards related to LNG storage tank design.

2.      Expanded Discussion: A more detailed discussion or recommendations section could enhance the conclusion by offering specific suggestions or potential avenues for further research based on the study's outcomes.

3.      Clarity on Methodological Impact: Elaborate on how the established methods or strategies introduced in this study can influence or improve future approaches to reliability analysis or structural design in the context of LNG storage tanks.

4.      Connect Back to Objectives: Reiterate how the conclusion aligns with the initial objectives or research questions posed at the beginning of the paper to provide a cohesive narrative of how the study addressed these points.

Point 7: References

1.      Please check consistency of format reference (such as capital letter format in article title, italic format in journal title, etc.).

2.      Kindly ensure that the references are updated, utilizing sources no older than the past five years.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper “Cross-scale reliability analysis framework for LNG storage tanks considering concrete material uncertainty” reports a research work about the evaluation of the structural behavior of LNG storage tanks taking into account the characteristics of the concrete as the aggregate geometry and distribution. In particular, the authors have proposed an approach for the concrete material modelling which considers the material uncertainty. In general, the manuscript appears well-organized in its different Sections and the approach is clearly described in the text. However, it is opinion of this reviewer that the manuscript needs some improvement before considering for publication in Journal of Marine Science and Engineering.

- check carefully the text (line 47: 2.5×1011 m3, the number is incorrect, line 52, etc…)

- Figure 1: improve the quality, in this version of the manuscript is very blurry;

- line 136: replace “section” with “Section”;

- check the reference in the text;

- add the u.m. in Figure 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17;

- the authors should indicate what the advantages of the proposed approach are, for example in terms of structural optimization.

 Moderate editing of English language is suggested 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The main concern of the reviewer is the validation of the finite element model because the basis of all calculations is based on the simulation results. Therefore, it is necessary to check the validity of the finite element model through comparison with laboratory results or comparison with the results presented by other scholars. 

1- Line 52, there is a type "Once t tank".

2- Line 58, it is stated that LNG storage tank divided into three categories, it is strongly suggested to show all types in schematic diagram and show the difference. 

3- Lines 65-67, it is better to show all components and parts in a figure. 

4- Regarding Table 1, please refer to an appropriate reference. 

5- There are errors in referencing, please check lines: 256, 258, 445, 449. 

6- Regarding wind load, it is strongly suggested to display in details, win load diagram, direction, intensity, etc. 

7- Figures 12 and 13 should be interpreted. 

8- Figure 14 is not clear and should be drawn again. 

9- Related conclusion section, it should be rewritten including the most achievements of the current research. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors tried to prepare the article according to the comments of the reviewers and also to respond to the comments. Despite the improvement of the quality of the article compared to the initial version, some of the answers to the comments have not been seen in the article. Therefore, it is suggested to check all comments again. For example, Figures 13 and 14 need to be interpreted.

In addition, the main concern of the reviewer is to validate the finite element model through comparison with other conducted research or laboratory data, and the authors did not have an answer in this subject.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors considered all comments and the new version of the manuscript can be published in the present form. It means that I have no more comment.