Dynamic Structural Response of a Corrugated Blast Wall Under Hydrogen Blast Loads
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript first conducted a literature review on the blast load characteristics of hydrogen blast and then applied the blast load characteristics selected from the literature review on a corrugated blast wall to investigate its dynamic structural response with LS-DYNA.
As the authors admitted in Section 3.1, the blast load is applied at the centre of corrugated blast wall in the direction of Y-axis without modelling either the air/water surrounding the corrugated blast wall or the subsequent blast load on other locations of the corrugated blast wall through separate CFD or FSI simulations. This limitation needs to be pointed out in the abstract and conclusion sections. Moreover, it seems that the abbreviation of CFD and FSI is used without giving its full name.
When the numerical model is presented, it is simply mentioned that a bilinear elasto-plastic model is applied to carry out the simulations conservatively while none of the material parameters is given. Please supplement a table to list the physical-mechanical parameters of the material models. The parameter TN first appears in Line No. 218 but no explanation is given there to indicate what the symbol represents.
It is mentioned that surface-to-surface contact between the corrugated panel and the angle-type support as well as single surface contact on the corrugated panel are adopted to capture potential interactions between structural components but none of the contact parameters is given. For example, what are the surface friction coefficients? How do they affect the modelled dynamic structural behaviour of the corrugated blast wall?
Besides illustrating the von-Mises stress and effective plastic strain distribution of the corrugated blast wall, the authors may consider depicting the distribution of the damage variable D and explicitly illustrating the failure pattern by adjusting the threshold of the damage variable D, which are available in many material models in LS-DYNA.
It suddenly appears in the discussion section that a new type of diagram for structural response analysis of corrugated blast walls was proposed while no argument was given in the result and analysis section. Please provide the argument in early sections as well.
A conclusion section is missing from the manuscript. Please supplement it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript, submitted under ID applsci-3753757 and titled "Dynamic structural response of a corrugated blast wall under hydrogen blast loads," presents a comprehensive study on the dynamic structural response of corrugated blast walls subjected to hydrogen blast loads, comparing them with hydrocarbon blast loads. The research is well-structured, methodologically sound, and addresses a critical gap in the literature regarding hydrogen explosion safety in offshore and shipbuilding industries. The findings are significant for advancing safety standards and structural design practices.
# Comments
1 - It is recommended to explicitly identify the article as a review in the title, in alignment with PRISMA guidelines. This helps readers and indexers immediately recognize the nature of the study.
2 - Consider including the key findings in the abstract to enhance its informativeness. This allows readers to quickly grasp the main outcomes and significance of the study.
3 - The objective of the study should be more clearly and explicitly stated at the end of the introduction. A concise articulation of the research aim will help guide the reader and establish the scope and relevance of the work.
4 - It would be helpful to clarify whether any inclusion or exclusion criteria were applied during the literature review. Additionally, the sources of the reviewed papers should be explicitly stated. Referring to the PRISMA guidelines could assist in better structuring and reporting the review methodology, including aspects such as search strategy, selection criteria, and data extraction procedures.
5 - To ensure that the most relevant and influential studies have been included in the review, it may be useful to consult an artificial intelligence tool to identify the most impactful papers on the subject. Comparing those results with the references already included can help validate the comprehensiveness and relevance of the literature covered.
6 - In line 95, the text states that the data are summarized in "Tables 1 and 2", but only Table 1 appears to be present in the manuscript. Please verify whether Table 2 is missing or if the numbering should be adjusted accordingly.
7 - There appears to be a formatting issue in Table 1 starting from page 4, where the content under the column “Combustible/flammable material type” is not displayed correctly. Please review the table layout to ensure that all information is clearly visible and properly aligned.
8 - Figures 2 and 3 are presented as experimental correlations, but it is unclear whether the underlying data were obtained directly by the authors or extracted from previously published studies. Please clarify the source of the data and, if applicable, ensure that proper citations are included.
9 - For the sake of reproducibility, Section 3.1 should provide more detailed information about the numerical procedures. Specifically, it would be important to clarify which numerical methods were employed, along with relevant parameters and solver settings used in the simulations. This would enhance the transparency and replicability of the study.
10 - It would be helpful to clarify whether the numerical model was fully implemented by the authors or if a commercial software package with pre-defined numerical procedures was used. This distinction is important for understanding the level of modeling effort and the potential limitations or assumptions embedded in the simulations.
11 - The manuscript does not appear to include a dedicated Conclusion section. Including a clear and concise conclusion would help summarize the key findings, highlight the contributions of the study, and outline potential implications or future research directions.
12 - In Figure 2, there is a citation format that does not conform to the citation style consistently used throughout the manuscript. Please revise it to ensure uniformity.
13 - Some figures could be improved with higher resolution or clearer legends.
# Conclusion
I recommend the manuscript for publication in Applied Sciences, pending major revisions to address the issues listed above.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no new comment.
