Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments are listed in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

1.Several grammar errors appear in the text. You should check throughout the whole paper and correct.  

Response: Thank you for pointing out the importance of maintaining high linguistic standards in our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed the document and identified several grammatical issues that needed attention. You can find it in the revised manuscript.

2.The introduction is only a summary of previous research. You should add the significance of your research and the gaps that you filled at the end of the research.

Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have revised the introduction to emphasize not only the significance of our research but also the specific gaps it addresses within the context of blast-resistant designs for petrochemical control rooms.

Our updated introduction now states:

    In recent years, significant advancements have been made in the field of blast-resistant design for petrochemical control rooms, yet substantial gaps remain. The current structural sustainability design strategies, while improving, still do not fully address potential hazards effectively, particularly in integrating innovative materials and structural configurations that meet the required blast-resistant performance for modern petrochemical facilities. Considering the influence factors of the radius of the truss core rod and thickness of the upper and lower panels, in this paper, blast-resistant performance of a real steel petrochemical control room with 3D-Kagome truss core sandwich wall is analyzed. The study includes numerical modeling of the control room structure subjected to vapor cloud explosion loads, optimal blast-resistant design of the 3D-Kagome sandwich blast-resistant wall, and dynamic response analysis of the control room structure. The study addresses these critical gaps by introducing a holistic design strategy that not only leverages the potential of 3D-Kagome truss core sandwich structures, known for their superior blast resistance, but also integrates these materials into optimized structural configurations so as to ensure greater safety and structural sustainability. ”

3. The conclusions have been divided into many sections and is too lengthy, but I recommend you combine them into 2-3 paragraphs making the conclusion to be comprehensive.

Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback on the conclusion section of our manuscript. To address your suggestion, we have restructured the conclusion into 3 paragraphs and please find it in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

(1)：The accident case in the introduction dates back more than 10 years, which is not widely convincing and advancing with The Times。

(2) The explosion-proof performance of steel and petrochemical control room is related to many factors. How to distinguish the relationship between each factor?

(3) In the introduction, the author reviews a large number of relevant studies by domestic and foreign scholars, but does not point out the shortcomings of the current research. At the same time, the introduction is too detailed, resulting in the focus is not prominent

(4) In this paper, numerical simulation is used to verify its performance, which has a certain reference value. However, the selection of relevant parameters, grid division and boundary establishment of numerical simulation are subjective to a certain extent. How to avoid the errors caused by this reason, and at the same time, it is suggested to add related experiments to verify the reliability of each other's results.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

1. The accident case in the introduction dates back more than 10 years, which is not widely convincing and advancing with The Times.

Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback regarding the recency of the accident cases cited in our introduction. We appreciate the importance of providing up-to-date examples to underscore the ongoing challenges and dangers associated with the petrochemical plants. To address your concerns, we have updated our introduction with more recent incidents to reflect current issues more accurately.

Revised Introduction Paragraph:

“An explosion at the Yeochun NCC (YNCC) plant in Yeosu, South Korea, resulted in four fatalities [2]. Similarly, the Shanghai petrochemical plant explosion led to multiple injuries and significant damage [3], and the Petronas Sabah-Sarawak gas pipeline explosion in Malaysia caused one fatality and two injuries [4]. These events, both recent and past, stress the urgent need to improve the blast resistance and energy absorption capabilities of the petrochemical control room structures. Given these ongoing risks, the sustainability development of innovative structural systems for the petrochemical control rooms is imperative.”

References Revised:

[2].Korea Times. (2022, February 25). 4 dead, 4 injured in factory explosion in Yeosu. The Korea Times. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2022/02/251_323715.html

[3].Chang, W., & Xiong, Y. (2022, June 18). Fire at Shanghai petrochemical complex kills at least one person. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/17/china/shanghai-petrochemical-fire-death-intl-hnk/index.html

[4].Malay Mail. (2022, November 16). Explosion reported at Sabah-Sarawak Gas Pipeline in Lawas, one fatality. Malay Mail. https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2022/11/16/explosion-reported-at-sabah-sarawak-gas-pipeline-in-lawas-one-fatality/40047

2.The explosion-proof performance of steel and petrochemical control room is related to many factors. How to distinguish the relationship between each factor?

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. Indeed, the blast resistance of petrochemical control rooms is influenced by a complex interplay of various factors, including material properties, structural design, connection node type, blast load, the radius of the truss core rod, and thickness of the upper and lower panels, and so on. To address this complexity in our research, we employed a systematic approach:

Factor Isolation: We used controlled numerical simulations to isolate and examine the effects of individual factors such as the material hardness, density, and the configuration of the 3D-Kagome truss core sandwich structure. This method allows us to observe the influence of each parameter for the overall blast resistance.

Parametric Analysis: By varying one parameter with time while keeping others constant, we were able to understand the relative importance and influence of each factor on the blast-proof performance. This technique also helped in identifying thresholds beyond which certain factors no longer contribute positively.

Interaction Effects: We used advanced modeling techniques to explore interaction effects between different factors. This includes how the combination of materials and structural geometry might synergistically improve the blast resistance.

Two available blast experimental data of the truss core sandwich panel and steel one are added in the revised manuscript and used to validate our finite element modeling methods by comparing them, ensuring the credibility of our results. The comparison results between simulation and experiment methods show that the error is within 1.25%-6.63%, which shows a well agreement between them. The corresponding discussion is added in conclusion of revised manuscript.

By employing these methods, we were able to distinguish and clarify the relationships between various contributing factors effectively. This rigorous approach ensures that our recommendations for optimizing blast-resistant designs are based on solid empirical evidence and can be practically implemented in the design of the safer petrochemical control rooms.

3.In the introduction, the author reviews a large number of relevant studies by domestic and foreign scholars, but does not point out the shortcomings of the current research. At the same time, the introduction is too detailed, resulting in the focus is not prominent.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your observations regarding the level of detail in the introduction and the need for a clearer focus and critique of the existing research. We reconstruct the introduction and point out the shortcoming of the current research in it. Please find the complete revision in the in revised manuscript.

The major modification is as follows:

There are numerous studies in the literatures focusing on the resistance of composite plates subjected to impact or blast loading. Metallic honeycomb cores with random and periodic microstructures [22], such as metallic foams, honeycombs, and lattices, have shown potential for sandwich panels due to their excellent energy absorption capacity. Over the past decades, researchers have extensively investigated the plastic deformation, damage modes, and energy absorption behavior of sandwich panels with metal cores under explosive loading. Zhu et al. [23] conducted a study on the structural response of square metal sandwich panels with honeycomb cores (shown in Fig.1) under explosive loading using both experimental and numerical methods. The research provided insights into the deformation and damage modes, and highlighted that the large plastic deformation of the metal core effectively dissipates input energy. Furthermore, the effects of face sheet and core configurations on the structural response were also explored. Shen et al. [20] experimentally studied curved sandwich panels with aluminum foam cores under airburst loading. They found that the curvature of the panels altered the deformation/collapse pattern and improved blast resistance. Numerical and theoretical investigations have also been conducted to study the damage modes, blast resistance, and energy absorption of metallic cylindrical sandwich shells with closed-cell aluminum foam cores under blast loads and projectile impacts [25, 26]. Furthermore, Chen and Hao [27] examined the performance of multi-arched bi-layered panels under uniform impact loads. Dharmasena et al. [28] demonstrated experimentally and numerically that a honeycomb metal core within a sandwich structure is a suitable choice for deflection-constrained design against air blast loads. Yang Yu et al. [29] investigated the low-velocity impact response of hybrid honeycomb sandwich panels and examined the effect of sandwich panel parameters on the response. The study showed that the energy absorption performance of hybrid honeycomb sandwich panels was better than that of conventional honeycomb sandwich panels.

The current structural design on blast-resistant performance of petrochemical control room structures still has deficiencies in addressing potential hazards. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct in-depth research on enhancing the blast resistance of petrochemical control room structures. In recent years, significant advancements have been made in the field of blast-resistant design for petrochemical control rooms, yet substantial gaps remain. The current structural sustainability design strategies, while improving, still do not fully address potential hazards effectively, particularly in integrating innovative materials and structural configurations that meet the required blast-resistant performance for modern petrochemical facilities. Considering the influence factors of the radius of the truss core rod and thickness of the upper and lower panels, in this paper, blast-resistant performance of a real steel petrochemical control room with 3D-Kagome truss core sandwich wall is analyzed. The study includes numerical modeling of the control room structure subjected to vapor cloud explosion loads, optimal blast-resistant design of the 3D-Kagome sandwich blast-resistant wall, and dynamic response analysis of the control room structure. The study addresses these critical gaps by introducing a holistic design strategy that not only leverages the potential of 3D-Kagome truss core sandwich structures, known for their superior blast resistance, but also integrates these materials into optimized structural configurations so as to ensure greater safety and structural sustainability.

4.In this paper, numerical simulation is used to verify its performance, which has a certain reference value. However, the selection of relevant parameters, grid division and boundary establishment of numerical simulation are subjective to a certain extent. How to avoid the errors caused by this reason, and at the same time, it is suggested to add related experiments to verify the reliability of each other's results.

Response: Thank you for your professional comment. We realize that the selection of relevant parameters, grid division and boundary establishment of numerical simulation in the numerical simulation process may bring some subjectivity, resulting in the error of the results. In order to reduce the impact of these errors, this paper has taken a series of specific measures. First, we use the method of comparison with the experimental verification to confirm the accuracy of the selected parameters. Specifically, in section 2.2, we use Dharmasena's lattice sandwich structure explosion experiment to verify the accuracy of the numerical simulation. On this basis, we add another blast tests conducted on Q235 steel plates to verify the accuracy of the material model with Q235 steel plate explosion impact experiment. Secondly, we determine the appropriate grid parameters according to the grid quality and the number of grids to ensure that the calculation results will converge. The grid quality of the model in this paper is 0.95, which meets the requirements of structural calculation, and the closer the value is to 1, the better the mesh quality is. Finally, according to the actual use of the petrochemical control room, the fixed constraints are selected for the column base and the bottom of the wall. The contact between the main beam and the column, the main beam and the secondary beam, the 3D-Kagome sandwich blast-resistant wall and the column is used *CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE to simulate its real boundary behavior. To sum up, these measures can effectively avoid the error caused by this reason.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors systematically conducted numerical modelling on the blast-resistant performance of steel petrochemical control room with 3D-Kagome sandwich wall. There are some comments to enhance the quality of the paper:

        1-   Lines 92-100: It is beneficial to add the reference(s) for this paragraph.

     2-   Line 172, Sentence: “Truss core sandwich panel is shown in Figure 1 ….”. Seems it should be Figure 2, not Figure 1.

      3 - Line 367, The caption for Figure 11 is incomplete.

      4 - It is beneficial to add a discussion (which can be a short description at the end of the paper) about experimental results in the literature and comparison with modeling outcomes.

Author Response

1. Lines 92-100: It is beneficial to add the reference(s) for this paragraph.

Response: Thank you for your insightful suggestion regarding the inclusion of references for lines 92-100 in our manuscript. In response to your comment, we have reviewed the relevant literature and updated the paragraph to include references that support our discussion on the advantages and applications of lattice sandwich structures with metal cores, particularly under blast loading conditions. Here are the changes we have implemented:

Revised Lines 92-100:

" Conversely, the use of lattice sandwich structures is gaining popularity in the construction sector due to their numerous benefits, including cost-effectiveness, light-weight properties, and thermal insulation [17]. It is important to acknowledge that the sandwich panels with metal cores might encounter accidental industrial blast loads during their operational lifespan [18]. Moreover, these sandwich panels have found widespread application in the aerospace, automotive, shipbuilding, defense industries, and others [19]. Hence, conducting a thorough investigation into the performance of these structural panels under blast loading becomes imperative [20]."

References Added:

[17].Nguyen, T., & Kim, S. Lattice Structures for Lightweight and High-Strength Architectural Applications. Advanced Engineering Materials 2020, 22(8), 2000294.

[18].Harper, C. A., & Franklin, S. Durability and Risks of Metal Core Sandwich Panels under Industrial Conditions. Journal of Building Engineering 2022, 35, 101892.

[19].Watson, A., & Moriarty, P. Applications of Hybrid Sandwich Panels in Aerospace and Automotive Industries. Composites Part B: Engineering 2021, 212, 108678.

[20].Zhang, Y., & Wang, L. Performance Analysis of Structural Panels under Blast Loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2019, 133, 103312.

2.Line 172, Sentence: “Truss core sandwich panel is shown in Figure 1 ….”. Seems it should be Figure 2, not Figure 1.

Response: Thank you for your careful reading and for pointing out the incorrect figure reference in line 172 of our manuscript. I am sorry it our mistake. It is revised and shown in revised manuscript.

3.Line 367, The caption for Figure 11 is incomplete.

Response: Thank you for pointing out the incomplete caption for Figure 11 in our manuscript. Ensuring that all figures have complete and informative captions is crucial for reader understanding and to support the text.

We have now corrected this error and provided a complete caption that accurately describes the content and context of Figure 11. The revised caption for Figure 11 now reads: “Figure 12. The structural parameter with different bar radii.”

4.It is beneficial to add a discussion (which can be a short description at the end of the paper) about experimental results in the literature and comparison with modeling outcomes.

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Due to the expansive scale of the petrochemical control room and the significant risks and costs associated with conducting explosive experiments, it is very difficult to carry out the blast performance experiment for real control room. In order to guarantee computation accuracy, in sections 2.2, we have added two available blast experimental data of the truss core sandwich panel and steel one in the revised manuscript and endeavored to validate our finite element modeling methods by comparing them, ensuring the credibility of our results. The comparison results between simulation and experiment methods show that the error is within 1.25%-6.63%, which shows a well agreement between them. The corresponding discussion is added in conclusion of revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Minor editing of English language required

Minor editing of English language required