Dependence of Ships Turning at Port Turning Basins on Clearance under the Ship’s Keel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper addresses a highly relevant and significant topic within maritime operations - the turning of ships in port turning basins, focusing on the energy consumption and emissions generated by harbor tugs.

1.Please include a detailed list of all parameters used in the theoretical calculation, along with their respective values. Also provide more detailed information about the theoretical models developed, including the mathematical basis, assumptions made, and the parameters considered.

2.In Figure 8, which features five different colored lines, it is not clear what each color represents. Please label each line directly within the figure to denote its specific meaning.

3.In Figure 9, the data is represented by only six sampling points, which is insufficient to convincingly demonstrate the trend line depicted.

4.In Figure 13, the real ship results, represented by triangles, align only with the red curve, indicating results for diesel fuel engines. However, in Figure 14, real ship results are exclusively associated with LNG fuel. Similarly, in Figure 15, real ship results appear solely on the red curve again. It's unclear why there are no real ship data points for the other two curves in these figures.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language quality of the article is of a high standard.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks a lot for Your review and comments.

We try modified our Article according Your remarks and comments

Sincerely 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article investigates ship turning in port basins using harbor tugs, focusing on shallow depth effects, energy consumption, and emissions. It presents theoretical models and experimental results verified on real ships and simulators, aiming to enhance safety and reduce environmental impact. The paper demonstrates a reasonable level of proficiency in the field. Its subject matter is fitting and corresponds well with the journal's scope. Nevertheless, specific sections necessitate additional polishing to augment clarity and precision. Given the appropriate revisions and enhancements, the paper has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the field.

 

1. The language expression method in the article can be appropriately optimized, for example, the last paragraph of the first section of the article: "The scientific contribution of the conducted research is a new methodology that al-lows determining the optimal number of tugboats for the ships turning in port ship turning basins or other port water areas, with minimal fuel consumption and minimal impact on the environment." could be changed to: "The research has introduced a novel methodology for determining the optimal number of tugboats required for ships maneuvering within port basins or other water areas, aiming to minimize fuel consumption and environmental impact.” The revised sentence simplifies the language and clarifies the purpose of the research.

 

The following comments are mainly made on: “4. 4. Case study of the ship’s turning in port ships turning basin.”

 

2. The article adequately describes the calibration process of the SimFlex Navigator simulator based on real ship data. However, clarification on how calibration correction coefficients were derived and specific parameters adjusted in the simulator would enhance methodological transparency and confidence in results (Sentence: "The simulator calibration is based on obtaining the calibration correction coefficients...").

 

3. While the article convincingly presents experimental comparisons between simulated and real ship data, a detailed discussion on the consistency of turning trajectories and any discrepancies would strengthen the validation process. (Sentence: "The obtained simulation results were compared with real experimental data...").

 

4. The discussion on varying tugboat engine power and its impact on ship turning efficiency and emissions is insightful. Exploring trade-offs between power reduction and maneuvering safety, particularly in emergency situations, would enrich the discussion (Sentence: "In ports, it is not always possible to use tugboats with extremely high pulling forces...").

 

The following comments are mainly made on: “5. Discussions and conclusions.”

 

5. This paper effectively underscores the importance of reducing environmental impact in port operations. A more comprehensive analysis quantifying emissions reductions and their contribution to overall port sustainability would enhance practical relevance.

 

6. While the case study focuses on a specific port, the article highlights the methodology's applicability to other ports. Including specific examples or comparisons with different port configurations and vessel types would enhance generalizability (Sentence: "The developed methodology of turning ships in ports with the help of tugboats can be adapted to any port...").

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language expression method in the article can be appropriately optimized, for example, the last paragraph of the first section of the article: "The scientific contribution of the conducted research is a new methodology that al-lows determining the optimal number of tugboats for the ships turning in port ship turning basins or other port water areas, with minimal fuel consumption and minimal impact on the environment." could be changed to: "The research has introduced a novel methodology for determining the optimal number of tugboats required for ships maneuvering within port basins or other water areas, aiming to minimize fuel consumption and environmental impact.” The revised sentence simplifies the language and clarifies the purpose of the research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks a lot for Your review, comments and remarks.

We try modified our Article according Your suggestions and comments

Sincerely

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is very interesting, addressing the assistance of tugs to vessels during their manoeuvres at ports with a reduced UKC. Furthermore, this topic is linked with the emissions of tugs during these port operations.

However, my comments to improve the present version of the manuscript are the following:

1. The literature review is weak. For instance, from 5^th to 8^th paragraphs of Introduction section are almost repetitive.

2. It should be necessary to include the ship particulars of the 50 experiments carried out in the simulator as length; block coefficient; are exposed to the wind; loading conditions. This aspect would be necessary to validate the results with the real data obtained on the real ship. What is more, it would be ideal to include a sensitivity analysis.

3. These 50 experiments were not plotted in the Figures 9 and onwards.

4. Legends of Figures 1, 2, 5, are not visible.

5. Figure 8 is completely unreadable.

6. The size of Figures should be similar. Please, check the difference between Fig. 13 and 14.

7. An independent Discussion section is desirable, analysing, for instance, the results of experiments in simulator with a different real ship.

8. In my opinion, the Conclusion section must not include any reference to literature. The Conclusion section should highlight the main findings/results of the present manuscript.

 9. English edition should be reviewed. It results very difficult to understand some paragraphs. For instance:

The last sentence of the antepenultimate paragraph of Section 2.

Sentence before Equation (5).

Sentence before subsection 4.4.

10. Other minor spelling mistakes:  

Subsection 3.2. “latitudinal and longitudinal”. I think it should read “lateral and longitudinal”

“Bollard pool” is shown instead of “Bollard pull” (after equation (14))

“Pooling” instead of “pulling” (before Equation (15))

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English edition should be reviewed. It results very difficult to understand some paragraphs

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks a lot for Your review, comments and suggestions.

We try modified our Article according Your comments and suggestions.

Sincerely

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the concerns and questions raised in the first round review.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks a lot for the Your profesional review of our manuscript.

Sincelery 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for addressing the comments of previous round. However, in this new version the legends of many Figure are still not legible. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks a lot for Your review and comments. We try modified our manuscript accordind Your comments.

Sincerely

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx