Applicability of a Design Assessment and Management for the Current Ammunition Depots in Taiwan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper investigates several key factors that affects the safety of ammunition depots in case of accidental blast using ANSYS/LS-DYNA. The topic is meaningful and provide guidance for structure design and maintenance of the ammunition depot. Some comments are given below:
(1) In Figure 15 and 17, the description of the numerical model is too rough. The author should give the dimensions and show the material and structures for different parts.
(2) In Tables 3, 4, 5, and 7, the unit for each variable should be specified clearly.
Author Response
Point 1: In Figures 15 and 17, the description of the numerical model is too rough. The author should give the dimensions and show the material and structures for different parts.
Response 1:
(Structure length: 60cm, width: 60cm and height: 60cm, the ground length: 240cm, width: 60cm and thickness was 1cm) was assumed as a rigid body is shown in Figure 15.
(Structure length: 60cm, width: 60cm and height: 60cm, the ground length: 240cm, width: 60cm and thickness was 1cm) was assumed as a rigid body. The air volume must cover structure and ground, length: 260cm, width: 80cm height: 70cm. A vent area opening of a 20cm2, 40cm2 or 60cm2 vent was set in a wall, one pound or 1/8 pound of TNT was placed in the ammunition depot, the blast point was set at the center of the plane of the ammunition depot, the height from the ground to the blast point was 10cm, 20cm, or 30cm, wall thickness was 10 cm. The finite element model is shown in Figure 17: the air element is 0.5cm3, Mapping is 0.25cm3 and the wall is 1cm3.
Point 2: In Tables 3, 4, 5, and 7, the unit for each variable should be specified clearly.
Response 2: The parameter values Unit are g, cm, μs, Mbar
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting paper on blast modelling with LS-Dyna. Some minor issues should be considered: - Line 15: Do you mean “…for a long period of time”? - Line 54-57: Please avoid “we”. Only 1 author! Use passive voice instead. - Line 496 should be changed to “The author does not have any conflicts of interest.” - Lines 64-72: Very long sentence. Avoid usage of semicolon and divide sentence into 3 sentences. - Line 251-252: “Materials required for numerical simulation are divided into five categories: air, charge, concrete, and rigid body.” I count FOUR materials only. Please change accordingly. - Table 5: Please use superscript number in x10-4 and Ex107 as in Tables 3 and 6. - Table 7: Ro is given three times. Please give values of E and Pr as well.Author Response
Point 1: Line 15: Do you mean “…for a long period of time”? 

Response 1: That is mean inappropriate or function Inadequate.
Point 2: Line 54-57: Please avoid “we”. Only 1 author! Use passive voice instead.
Response 2: I have amended to this article and show in line54-57 with red words.
Point 3: Lines 64-72: Very long sentence. Avoid usage of semicolon and divide sentence into 3 sentences.
Response 3: I have already amended a long sentence to 3 sentences and show in line64-72 with red words.
Point 4: Line 251-252: “Materials required for numerical simulation are divided into five categories: air, charge, concrete, and rigid body.” I count FOUR materials only. Please change accordingly.
Response 4: That is my fault. I have already amended the materials into four categories and show in line251-252 with red words.
Point 5: Table 5: Please use superscript number in x10-4 and Ex107 as in Tables 3 and 6.
Response 5: I have already amended Table 5 and show in red words.
Point 6: Table 7: Ro is given three times. Please give values of E and Pr as well.
Response 6: This is my fault. I mistakenly re-entered the value. I have corrected it in my article! and show in red words.
Point 7: Use passive voice instead. - Line 496 should be changed to “The author does not have any conflicts of interest.”
Response 7: This is my fault. I mistakenly re-entered the value. I have corrected it in my article! and show in red words.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Review of the paper Manuscript ID: applsci-705879
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Applicability of a design assessment and management for the current
ammunition depots in Taiwan
Authors: Hsin-hung Lai *
Submitted to section: Civil Engineering,
The paper addresses the problem of possible explosions in ammunition depots in Taiwan. The Authors relate their numerical results from Ansys/Ls-Dyna to some specifications towards befter understanding of the current assessment method.
The paper is well-written and should be published. There are several points should be clarified before accepting the paper:
Give the units of the vertical axis in fig.1. In fig 3and in fig 4 there is bar with “note”. What is the meaning? Fig 8 is very hard to read, the yellow colour is hardly visible The major flaw of the paper is the size of the structure, reported in line 356. It I very hard to believe that these are real dimensions of the engineering structure. In this regard the thickness of the wall is 1/6 of the gross dimension of the modelled depot. Please give strong rationale that the presented results are not affected by the scale effect. Table 7 has incorrect heading i.e. 3 times ‘ro’ instead of E, v, and roa
Author Response
Point 1: Give the units of the vertical axis in fig 1.
Response 1: The Pr and Ir units is Mpa
Point 2: In fig 3 and in fig 4 there is bar with “note”. What is the meaning?
Response 2: When we are using this document, we can enter the value on the X axis we want to know on the graph, which can correspond to the result on the Y axis
Point 3: Fig 8 is very hard to read, the yellow color is hardly visible.
Response 3: I have tried my best to beautify the patterns on the literature so that the yellow lines can be seen more clearly.
Point 4: The major flaw of the paper is the size of the structure, reported in line 356. It I very hard to believe that these are real dimensions of the engineering structure. In this regard the thickness of the wall is 1/6 of the gross dimension of the modelled depot. Please give strong rationale that the presented results are not affected by the scale effect.
Response 4: I'm really sorry here, because I mistakenly planted the size and wrote 1 cm into 10 cm. I have corrected this error in my article.
Point 5: Table 7 has incorrect heading i.e. 3 times ‘ro’ instead of E, v, and roa.
Response 5: This is my fault. I mistakenly re-entered the value. I have corrected it in my article!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
