Study on Dynamic Response of Damper under Gas Explosion Impact
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
ANSYS/ LS-DYNA software is used to establish a mathematical-physical model of the damper with ventilation-regulator windows of six different sizes. The dynamic response characteristics of the dampers under the gas explosion impact are simulated and the displacement, equivalent force and plastic strain of the dampers are measured. Finally, a theoretical analysis is carried out. The research results of the response were obtained. The research results can provide some theoretical basis and data support for the damper structure selection, damper location selection and setting of ventilation-regulator window. I think the topic of the paper is worthy to be studied. However, some revisions should be carried out before the paper can be accepted to publish in the journal and there are several problems as follows:
1. The abstract need to be revised according to the structure of research purpose, research method, results and conclusions.
2. Conclusions need to be refined.
3. Need to align the case of the first letter of words in Figure 1
4. Figure 3 is poor readability and does not make clear the meaning of l = 0.1m etc.
5.Explain your figures. Why there are spikes? Why there is a certain trend? Why some data points are missing? Why the stresses are increasing and then decreasing? etc
6. References shall be described with complete items, complete contents, correct sequence, correct punctuation, lack of corresponding references, and wrong serial numbers
7.English grammar, punctuation, and spellings need to be improved through proofreading.
Author Response
Dear editor and reviewers,
Thank you very much to point out the English written issues and for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed corrections are listed below point by point:
Reviewer #1: ANSYS/ LS-DYNA software is used to establish a mathematical- physical model of the damper with ventilation-regulator windows of six different sizes. The dynamic response characteristics of the dampers under the gas explosion impact are simulated and the displacement, equivalent force and plastic strain of the dampers are measured. Finally, a theoretical analysis is carried out. The research results of the response were obtained. The research results can provide some theoretical basis and data support for the damper structure selection, damper location selection and setting of ventilation-regulator window. I think the topic of the paper is worthy to be studied. However, some revisions should be carried out before the paper can be accepted to publish in the journal and there are several problems as follows:
Q 1. The abstract need to be revised according to the structure of research purpose, research method, results and conclusions.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable and thoughtful comments. The abstract was revised.
Q 2. Conclusions need to be refined.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable and thoughtful comments. Conclusions were revised.
Q 3. Need to align the case of the first letter of words in Figure 1.
Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. It was revised.
Q 4. Figure 3 is poor readability and does not make clear the meaning of l = 0.1m etc.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable and thoughtful comments. Which is L=0.1m. It was revised.
Q 5. Explain your figures. Why there are spikes? Why there is a certain trend? Why some data points are missing? Why the stresses are increasing and then decreasing? etc.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable and thoughtful comments. During the impact process of gas explosion on the damper, there is a continuous loading effect. During continuous impact loading, the stress on the damper increases gradually. However, with the increase of time, the loading effect gradually decreases due to the weakening of the subsequent explosion impact. Therefore, the impact stress on the damper also decreases, namely, the stress on the damper increases first and then decreases. The missing data points have been supplemented in the article.
Q 6. References shall be described with complete items, complete contents, correct sequence, correct punctuation, lack of corresponding references, and wrong serial numbers.
Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. References were revised.
Q 7. English grammar, punctuation, and spellings need to be improved through proofreading.
Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. They were revised.
　　The manuscript has been resubmitted to your journal. We look forward to your positive response.
　　Thank you very much!
　　Please contact me by E-mail: cumtyeqing@126.com, if there are any questions.
Yours Sincerely
Li Shujuan, Zhenzhen Jia, Qing Ye
January,8, 2023.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, the authors studied the dynamic response of damper with ventilation-regulator windows of six different sizes under gas explosion impact. This topic is interesting and worth of studying, the results of manuscript are also impressive because the corresponding researches are lacking at the present. However, the manuscript needs little revision before acceptance for publication. Several specific comments are given as follows:
1. The damper sizes should be described in Figure 1 or in 2.2 Physical Model and Grid Division.
2. The letter size in Figure 1 is not same.
3. Theoretical basis for selecting 10Kg TNT.
4. Supplement: TNT parameters and gas parameters.
5. Formula letters should be italicized.
6. The time of the chart should be consistent
7. There are some case syntax problems in the article.
8. Some units in the text are incorrectly written in format and need to be corrected.
9. The format of chart description is not canonical and should be unified.
10. How do the results of the study help with damper design?
Author Response
Dear editor and reviewers,
Thank you very much to point out the English written issues and for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed corrections are listed below point by point:
Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, the authors studied the dynamic response of damper with ventilation-regulator windows of six different sizes under gas explosion impact. This topic is interesting and worth of studying, the results of manuscript are also impressive because the corresponding researches are lacking at the present. However, the manuscript needs little revision before acceptance for publication. Several specific comments are given as follows:
Q 1. The damper sizes should be described in Figure 1 or in 2.2 Physical Model and Grid Division.
Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. They were added and revised.
Thank you very much for your valuable and thoughtful comments.
Q 2. The letter size in Figure 1 is not same.
Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. It was revised.
Q 3. Theoretical basis for selecting 10Kg TNT.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable and thoughtful comments. According to filling volume in roadway gas and TNT equivalent method, the TNT amount calculated in this time is 10Kg.
Q 4. Supplement: TNT parameters and gas parameters.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable and thoughtful comments. Parameters of TNT are shown in Table 1. Parameters of gas and air are shown in Table 2.
Q 5. Formula letters should be italicized.
Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. They were revised.
Q 6. The time of the chart should be consistent.
Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. They were added and revised.
Q 7. There are some case syntax problems in the article.
Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. They were revised.
Q 8. Some units in the text are incorrectly written in format and need to be corrected.
Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. They were revised.
Q 9. The format of chart description is not canonical and should be unified.
Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. They were revised.
Q 10. How do the results of the study help with damper design?
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable and thoughtful comments. The study results can provide some theoretical basis and data support for the damper structure selection, damper location selection and setting of ventilation-regulator window.
　　The manuscript has been resubmitted to your journal. We look forward to your positive response.
　　Thank you very much!
　　Please contact me by E-mail: cumtyeqing@126.com, if there are any questions.
Yours Sincerely
Li Shujuan, Zhenzhen Jia, Qing Ye
January,8, 2023.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The article is prepared carelessly and not according to the standards, so I cannot accept it for publication.
In section 2.1 you write: "The gas filled in the roadway is incompressible gas." In the case of gas dynamics, this is an incorrect assumption. In the same section is: "The gas explosion process is a single step reaction." In contrast, the article lacks a reaction equation and associated parameters. Scientific articles should describe the physical models that are relevant to the analysis of a problem, not the names of cards from the program. Many material constants are missing, such as for equation (14). Also, the material model of steel has been oddly defined. At the same time, the laws of continuous mechanics, which are well known, have been rewritten. They also lack definitions of a number of variables.
It seems to me that the authors used ConWep, but in this situation the article does not add anything new. Engineering theses include a broader and deeper analysis of the phenomenon.
Besides, the "Cowper Symonds" model is written with a hyphen "Cowper-Symonds" . The authors themselves cannot decide whether the Sadowski equation is theoretical or experimental. Only to the authors the node or element numbers say something, but to no one else.
Author Response
Thank you very much to point out the English written issues and for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed corrections are listed below point by point:
Reviewer #3:
Q 1. The article is prepared carelessly and not according to the standards, so I cannot accept it for publication.
Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. It was revised.
Q 2. In section 2.1 you write: "The gas filled in the roadway is incompressible gas." In the case of gas dynamics, this is an incorrect assumption.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable and thoughtful comments. For the convenience of volume calculation, the gas is incompressible. In explosion reaction, TNT equivalent is calculated according to gas volume, and only TNT quantity is considered.
Q 3. In the same section is: "The gas explosion process is a single step reaction." In contrast, the article lacks a reaction equation and associated parameters.
Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. In reaction, CH4+O2=CO2+H2O is only considered. Intermediates and instantaneous products are not considered, so the reaction equation and associated parameters are not explained in the text.
Q 4. Scientific articles should describe the physical models that are relevant to the analysis of a problem, not the names of cards from the program. Many material constants are missing, such as for equation (14).
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable and thoughtful comments. They were revised.
Q 5. Also, the material model of steel has been oddly defined. At the same time, the laws of continuous mechanics, which are well known, have been rewritten. They also lack definitions of a number of variables.
Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. The whole damper is regarded as solid steel plate, so the material model of steel has been defined. Some definitions of a number of variables were added.
Q 6. It seems to me that the authors used ConWep, but in this situation the article does not add anything new. Engineering theses include a broader and deeper analysis of the phenomenon.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable and thoughtful comments. ConWep model is also built into software such as LS-DYNA, which can be used to load explosion loads. This paper only analyzes the stress of the damper with adjusting window when it is impacted by explosion.
Q7. Besides, the "Cowper Symonds" model is written with a hyphen "Cowper- Symonds". The authors themselves cannot decide whether the Sadowski equation is theoretical or experimental. Only to the authors the node or element numbers say something, but to no one else.
Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. In paper, “the strain rate is considered by the Cowper Symonds model”. Sadowski equation is an empirical equation, which is from the literature [20,21].
　　The manuscript has been resubmitted to your journal. We look forward to your positive response.
　　Thank you very much!
　　Please contact me by E-mail: cumtyeqing@126.com, if there are any questions.
Yours Sincerely
Li Shujuan, Zhenzhen Jia, Qing Ye
January,8, 2023.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is well written and well organized. Al terms inside the formukla must be explained. My great concerni s related about the symetric scheme used in the model: obviously, all the results will be symetric. What will happen in case of not symetric position of the wave source? Also the distance between TNT and the dumper is fixed. What will change in change this distance?
Detailed comments:
Every term of all formulas must be explained
Chapter 2.2 mesh division->mesh discretization
Line 125: “and the mesh number of” … please replace as “the number of elements of the mesh is…”
174 Please specify what is the *MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC (is a name of a material available in the software used?)
189- Please give details about *LOAD-BLAST and *LOAD-SEGMENT-SET method or give appropriate references
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much to point out the English written issues and for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed corrections are listed below point by point:
Reviewer #4:
Q 1. The paper is well written and well organized. Al terms inside the for mukla must be explained. My great concern is related about the symetric scheme used in the model: obviously, all the results will be symetric. What will happen in case of not symetric position of the wave source? Also the distance between TNT and the dumper is fixed. What will change in change this distance?
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable and thoughtful comments. The underground damper is symmetrical and also for safety consideration. The three distances are considered in Table.1. only the intensity of the shock wave and its impact effect are considered(By changing the explosive quantity). If position of the wave source not is symetric, the propagation of shock wave after explosion will be more complex.
Q 2. Every term of all formulas must be explained.
Response: Thank you very much. The most of terms of all formulas were explained, some are commonly used formulas, which is not explained.
Q 3. Chapter 2.2 mesh division->mesh discretization.
Response: Thank you very much. It was revised.
Q 4. Line 125: “and the mesh number of” … please replace as “the number of elements of the mesh is…”.
Response: Thank you very much. It was revised.
Q 5. 174 Please specify what is the *MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC (is a name of a material available in the software used?).
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable and thoughtful comments. The reference was added. In the preprocessing software of Ls-Dyna, MAT_ PLASTIC_ KINEMATIC is a nonlinear plastic material model.
Q 6. 189- Please give details about *LOAD-BLAST and *LOAD-SEGMENT-SET method or give appropriate references.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable and thoughtful comments. The reference was added. The *LOAD-BLAST can define an air blast function for the application of pressure loads from the detonation of conventional explosives, which is used in conjunction with the keywords: LOAD_SEGMENT_SET[24]. So the *LOAD-BLAST and *LOAD-SEGMENT-SET method combined application of shock wave is applied.
The manuscript has been resubmitted to your journal. We look forward to your positive response.
　　Thank you very much!
　　Please contact me by E-mail: jiazhenzhen1982@126.com, if there are any questions.
Yours Sincerely
Li Shujuan, Zhenzhen Jia, Qing Ye
January,19, 2023.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I do not see a significant improvement, therefore I am not changing my opinion. The article is not suitable for publication in a journal with such a high IF.
No information on what the parameters in table 1 and 2 (gas) mean. Where in the model is air and where is gas? No references to literature (tables 1 and 2). Names of cards from Ls-Dyna are still used, not physical or material models:
- SOLID164 model
- *MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC
- *LOAD-BLAST and *LOAD-SEGMENT-SET
- MAT_HIGH_EXPLOSIVE_BURN
What is the relationship between Et, and b and Nw? If the authors do not wish to describe the material in this way, please provide definitions of the parameters mentioned or refer to the literature.
All measured or determined (calculated) values are measured with a certain measurement inaccuracy. Certainly, the Sadowski relation does not allow the pressure value to be determined with an accuracy of 8 significant places. Also, the approximations used in the model do not allow results characterised by 5 significant figures to be obtained (Tab. 3).
In the approximation used by the authors, it is not possible to write that a one-step response was assumed. In addition, it should be noted that the sentence was left: ''The gas filled in the roadway is incompressible gas." (see previous review).
There is still no information about a number of parameters and variables: X, t, wint, ...
The marking of the points shown in Figure 6 should be used from the beginning.
The graphs shown in the new figures, e.g. Fig. 3, show that:
1. the recording of the observed parameter was made too infrequently, resulting in a non-physical course of this variable
2. in the model, damping has to be applied (turned on) after the pressure pulse is applied to obtain the final parameters. The authors omitted this step of the analysis.
Still is: "Cowper Symonds" should be "Cowper-Symonds". The “kg” designation in places appears in capital letters. In cited references, there must not be a full stop after the number in square brackets.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much to point out the English written issues and for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed corrections are listed below point by point:
Reviewer #1: I do not see a significant improvement, therefore I am not changing my opinion. The article is not suitable for publication in a journal with such a high IF.
Q 1. No information on what the parameters in table 1 and 2 (gas) mean. Where in the model is air and where is gas? No references to literature (tables 1 and 2). Names of cards from Ls-Dyna are still used, not physical or material models:
- SOLID164 model
- *MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC
- *LOAD-BLAST and *LOAD-SEGMENT-SET
- MAT_HIGH_EXPLOSIVE_BURN.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable and thoughtful comments. References to literature (tables 1 and 2) were added.
Q 2. What is the relationship between Et, and b and Nw? If the authors do not wish to describe the material in this way, please provide definitions of the parameters mentioned or refer to the literature.
Response: Thank you very much. The reference was added.
(14).
Q 3. All measured or determined (calculated) values are measured with a certain measurement inaccuracy. Certainly, the Sadowski relation does not allow the pressure value to be determined with an accuracy of 8 significant places. Also, the approximations used in the model do not allow results characterised by 5 significant figures to be obtained (Tab. 3).
Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. They were revised.
Q 4. In the approximation used by the authors, it is not possible to write that a one-step response was assumed. In addition, it should be noted that the sentence was left: ''The gas filled in the roadway is incompressible gas." (see previous review)..
Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. It was revised.
Q 5. There is still no information about a number of parameters and variables: X, t, wint, ...
Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. The most of parameters and variables were explained, some are commonly used formulas, which is not explained.
Q 6.1. The graphs shown in the new figures, e.g. Fig. 3, show that: the recording of the observed parameter was made too infrequently, resulting in a non-physical course of this variable.
Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. Figure 3 is only a representative point (A4230), which is the point where the maximum displacement occurs, the point has typical characteristics. Other points are also in the figure 4.
Q 6.2. in the model, damping has to be applied (turned on) after the pressure pulse is applied to obtain the final parameters. The authors omitted this step of the analysis.
Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. In this time, we only analyze the damage characteristics of the damper, not analyze it.
Q 7. Still is: "Cowper Symonds" should be "Cowper-Symonds". The “kg” designation in places appears in capital letters. In cited references, there must not be a full stop after the number in square brackets.
Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. They were revised. References were revised according the format and requirements of Sustainability.
　The manuscript has been resubmitted to your journal. We look forward to your positive response.
　　Thank you very much!
　　Please contact me by E-mail: jiazhenzhen1982@126.com, if there are any questions.
Yours Sincerely
Li Shujuan, Zhenzhen Jia, Qing Ye
January,18, 2023.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper has been improved by following all reviewer's requests. The paper can be now published
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
I do not believe that the authors have revised the manuscript to the extent that it is suitable for publication.
