Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Dear authors,

Thanks for your contribution to Energies.

Before further process of this manuscript, please check if it matches the scope of the journal.

 

With minor revisions of the manuscript, it might be reconsidered.

 

The opinions are set out below:

 

STRUCTURE 

Please prepare the manuscript following the instructions for authors. 

 

ENGLISH

The manuscript has several typos. Authors need to proofread the paper to eliminate all of them. Some sentences are too long. Generally, it is preferable to write short sentences with one idea in each sentence.

 

REFERENCES

The literature review is incomplete. Several relevant references are missing. The reference list should include the full title, as recommended by the style guide.

 

INTRODUCTION 

Authors should include additional references in the introduction that support the claims. Authors should better explain the background to this research, including why the research issue is important. Contributions should be enhanced. It should be made clear what is novel and how it addresses the limitations of prior work.

 

RELATED WORK 

The related work section is not well organized. Writers should try to categorize articles and present them logically. Authors should add a table comparing the main features of previous work in order to highlight their differences and limitations. Alternatively, authors may consider adding a row to the table to describe the proposed solution.

 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

Authors should provide a clear and detailed definition of the issue. Authors should include an example to illustrate how the problem is defined.

 

METHOD

A novel solution is presented, but it is important to better explain the design decisions (e.g. why the solution is designed that way). There is a need for discussion of the complexity of the proposed solution.

 

EXPERIMENT

The experiments should be updated to incorporate some comparisons to newer studies. 

 

Sincerely yours,

Author Response

Our response to the Reviewer's remarks are in attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

An interesting paper but in need of some development and addition.  I am concerned that the design does not fully match reality - indeed the authors mention divergence form reality and this is not fully discussed.  Similarly there is little discussion of the rationale for doubt over the normal lumped parameter use.  This needs to be clarified. What further work is proposed to address the perceived inconsistencies and hoe will that too be validated?

Which Cheetah version was used?  The early versions are much better at explosives and propellants so that the uncertainties in the results are higher for propellants.  This has been addressed in later (5 and Up) versions. it might be worth using other tools to check the results, though this is less important expect as validation.

This will be a good paper with amendment and attention to the clarity of the English.

Author Response

Our response to Reviwer's reamrks are in attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This has been improved sufficiently to allow publication