Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• Research on this topic is very welcome in the literature, and this manuscript was decently prepared and scientifically sound.
• The abstract is decent but requires the reader to already have subject matter expertise, for example to understand whether 30dB shielding by soil is good. A more effective technique in the abstract would be to use more broadly understood terminology by establishing a benchmark case, and then stating results as a percent difference from the presumably acceptable benchmark (especially since percent difference is a universally understood measure). The authors offer such benchmarks in the manuscript already, but they are not referenced when describing results.
• Literature review needs improvement with necessary reduction in the abuse of multi-citation without elaboration.
  • Please give details about why the reader should investigate each of the doubly cited [1-2] respectively.
  • Please give details about why the reader should investigate each of the doubly cited [3-4] respectively.
  • Please give details about why the reader should investigate each of the quintuple citation of [5-9] respectively.
  • Please give details about why the reader should investigate each of the triple citation of [11-13] respectively.
  • Please give details about why the reader should investigate each of the double citation of [14-15] respectively.
  • Please give details about why the reader should investigate each of the quadruple citation of [17-20] respectively.
  • Please give details about why the reader should investigate each of the double citation of [22-23] respectively.
  • Please give details about why the reader should investigate each of the double citation of [24-25] respectively.
• Figures and tables are used effectively, and they enhance the manuscript. Additional attention needs to be paid to several figures.
  • The internal text inside all the subfigures in figure 6 is illegibly small. The reviewer reminds the authors the smallest permissible text size in the template is the figure caption, and this allows visual resizing to insure legibility.
  • The use of red font in the legend further degrades legibility, particularly when printed (potentially on old, black and white printers).
  • Use of identical line sizes and thicknesses on shared ordinates renders the data indistinguishable when printed (potentially on old, black and white printers). Variation in line styles and/or thicknesses, or introduction of a second ordinate would help legibility of data.
• Acronym usage is quite heavy and detracts from the manuscript’s readability.
  • Most usage is needless, particularly in paragraph 3 where nearly every acronym could be eliminated without loss.
  • The authors seem to define HEMP as strictly nuclear (i.e. HAND), while HEMP is normally defined to include non-nuclear sources. Instead the acronym is meant to emphasize high-altitude, while HAND emphasizes a nuclear source. Non-standard acronym definition compounds the confusing over-use of acronyms.  The review strongly suggests elimination of acronyms in favor or simply stating the authors’ meaning to the readers.
• No future research has been recommended by the authors denying the reader the broader context to put the authors’ work into the lineage of research. The reviewer would like to see the recently proposed application of deterministic artificial intelligence applied to electronic circuits to counter the deleterious effects of EMP that penetrate the proposed shielding. The reviewer is currently studying new methods stemming from Smeresky’s (et al) work last year on expanding Cooper’s method from van der Pol circuits to space systems with “optimal learning” in the feedback sense. Smeresky: https://doi.org/10.3390/a13010023

Author Response

Please find the attached author's answer.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the authors present the derived decision making factors to classify EMP protection levels and determine various protection measures. Using the Delphi study, protection levels of 80, 60 and 40 dB are proposed. Furthermore, based on the finite integration method and by using the MWS software, the shielding efficiency in a brigade-level facility against an EMP is analyzed with air, dry and wet soil being the shielding materials. The authors conclude that wet soil is most effective as the shielding material. In order for this work to be considered for publication in Applied Sciences, a major revision is necessary.

 

First and foremost, the authors state that the windows and door regions are most vulnerable to the EMP, however, what is the material of both the windows and the door and how would it effect the protection performance?

Secondly, the authors list and discuss various methods and software for analysis of the EMP damage, however, in this section no references are given. Listing the sources of information where the reader can find more discussions and results is necessary in this section.

Furthermore, it is important for the authors to elaborate on their results and to include a much stronger discussion before moving on to the conclusion on page 9. How do the results, using specifically this method (FIM), compare to the results found in literature? How would the direction of the incoming EMP influence the shielding effectiveness? It is not clear from the presented manuscript, which is the EMP direction of incidence.

Even if one considers that the wet soil can have an attenuation effectiveness of 30dB in some parts of the facility, this will still not be sufficient for even the 3^rd level of protection, described in Table 3. In some part of the facility, such as Room 3, Corridor 1 and 3, the difference between the three materials is not clear. This must be presented much clearer and discussed in the text. Also, what would be the effect of the thickness of the walls with respect to the attenuation level?

 

In summary, the manuscript proposes policies for threat classification of the EMP, however, the simulation results require a more rigorous analysis and presentation. They must be discussed deeper and the strengths and limitations must be elaborated further with respect to the classification.

Author Response

Please find the attached author's answer.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The responses to the reviewer's comments were sufficient and the changes, made to the manuscript, were in order. The manuscript is ready for publication in its present form.