A Method for Calculating the Velocity of Corner-to-Corner Rear-End Collisions of Vehicles Based on Collision Deformation Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The paper is well good to read and the case study well has done to compare and show the model performance.

2. I did not see the evidence of the system energy performance analysis. Please propose improving the system energy analysis of the case study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The English of the paper mut be substantially revised.

In the abstract, too specific names such as LS-DYNA software or PC-Crash software should not be employed. 

First sentence of the abstract, "To improve the efficiency of solving vehicle colision velocity and...... is proposed to solve the collision velicity of vehicle corner rear-end collision accident", the authours repeat the same twice?

The sentence: "The calculation method of collision deformation is studied and proposed", lines 12-13, is strange.

Too specific information about the result should not be provided in the Abstract. For example, line 21, "the velocity error is within 5%".

In the introduction, it should not be distinghished between Background and literature review. Moreover, this section is hard to read; it should be dividided into more paragraphs, and the connection between the different works is not so clear.

In line 45, a dot is missing before "According to the relationship....."

Lines 49-50, remove "from Shanghai Jiao Tong Univerisity".

Line 65, "Dario Vangi proposed..." in which work? The same in line 113: "Sergei Evtiukova et al".

"A system of single theoretical" lines 107-108n sounds strange.

"Research results", line 119, it might be better "empirical results".

The outline of the paper should be added at the end of the introduction.

Section 2.1, the design of the experiment may need more text explanation.

In Table 2, what does Group Number mean?

There is very little space before and after Figure 4. Also, Equations (2) and (3) should be better presented.

In the conclusions section, the advantages of the proposal over the state-of-art methods must be remarked.

The space after y before the title References (line 304) is very small.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all my comments. Hence, I proposed that the manuscript is accepted in the present form.