Dynamic Response and Failure Mechanism of Concrete Arch Dams under Extreme Loadings: A Solid Foundation for Real-World Actions to Reduce Dam Collapse Losses during Wartime or Terrorist Attacks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I am really impressed about the presented paper, as well as the idea and the content of the article. The dam safety is always very important, during wartime it is crucial.  So in my opinion the paper brings novelty, the theme is worthy of investigation and results could be implement in many countries all over the world. Paper is prepared clearly, fully and sufficient. Minor required changes are shown in the attached manuscript. Summarize I can recommend the paper to published after minor changes suggested by the reviewer (mainly editing changes).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much!

The suggestions you offered have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your insightful comments on our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Please, see attached document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Revision completed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is interesting for non-military researchers like I am.

However, it suffers from several imprecisenesses.

The title: "A guideline for governments to take effective measures to reduce dams collapse losses during wartime or terrorist attacks"

"effectiveness" is neither discussed nor proved. The majority of the article is about modelling the dam's response without any additional protection. It can be a separate article due to the volume of this part.

Then, a concrete foam is mentioned as a protection layer without "in-depth analysis". It is just concluded that according to the parameters of this material it is not a suitable solution.

Then, 1-2 pages of text and several figures concern the aluminum foam protection.  Considering the total 49 pages it seems not much.

For the non-military-oriented journal (and its readers) special care should be put into the introduction and methods and materials section. Nevertheless, just this part has to be supplemented or corrected. Explosive charge W is not explained (line 214). R is defined as a detonation center. Then R1 is divided by R2 (see eq 1). It is unclear how to divide center by center. Then (line 220) R is defined as a distance. It is unclear what is the time t and following that  t+1, t-1, t-2. There is a greek pi letter used and it is not the ratio of circumference to diameter of the circle. There are several symbols of functions and others presented on page 5 without their explanation or units.

It is stated that the dam has an installed capacity of 3600 MW (?!)

Normal water storage level is 1880 m; dead water 1800 m, dam hight  is 305 m. These values have to be explained. Why the total storage capacity 7.76 billion m3 is important?

Lines 454-458 are inconsistant.

There is a statement: Foamed aluminum outperforms foamed concrete in terms of anti-knock performance. It nor proved neither referenced.

Information presented in lines 460-461 is repeated in lines 487-489.

Figure 3 seems inconsistent with the text about aluminium (any units for strain)

Figure 11 is unclear. Are dams of different arc lengths are analysed? How the damage average is defined?

The sentence in line 745 : The detonation center is located 275m from the arch crown cantilever. is imprecise (scheme?) If it is in a plane, the impact would be very low.

Fitting curves (i.e. equations 20, 21, 22) should be explained more.

Column 1 of Table 7 is named "The Protective layer thickness and surface" then H=10 or H=80 m is presented.

Velocities and accelerations of the monitored points are presented (Fig 30) but not discussed in terms of damages. Why they are presented?

I couldn't find the justification for conclusion (1) (line 1469), (3), (6).

As I feel the necessity of some more explanations about the circumstances of explosion models, the more reasonable is dividing the article on two separate articles; the nature of destroying the specific type of dam by explosive; the protection.

 

Author Response

Revision completed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did not adress my main concerns. Brieftly:

• They did not include my suggested literature review about containment building in nuclear power plants.
• The mesh of the domain is not shown.
• The paper is even longer!

I attach my previous review.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Round 2 Reviewer 2

The authors did not address my main concerns.

Briefly:

1) They did not include my suggested literature review about containment building in nuclear power plants.

2) The mesh of the domain is not shown.

3) The paper is even longer!

Authors’ reply: Respected Reviewer 2 thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. Your suggestions made a huge improvement in our research paper.

We agree with you and have incorporated your suggestions throughout the manuscript. After carefully reading your comment, the related sections have been reviewed and reorganized, and new details have been added to emphasize your points.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the merit discussion and respect. It is also my intention while writing any review.

Thank you for removing the word "effectiveness" from the article (as suggested). As you probably realize effectiveness should refer to any comparison (other kinds of protection, the reference to cost, etc.). The aluminum layer certainly improves the dam's properties. There is no doubt.

The importance of 7.76 billion m3 capacity is explained to me in the answer. Thank you. I suggest to add a similar sentence to the article.

The explanation for figure 3 is placed in the answer. Why not in the article. It is stated in the figure caption that it is "constitutive curve". Please add the reference (source) of that.

ad question 13 of my original review

The answer is that the damage is averaged along the arch direction. It is clear. But how single damage in one section of the arch... How "damage" is measured and defined. (there is no unit near the vertical axes in figures presenting "damage average")

79116022020000000188663606

79116022020000000188663606

Probably it is a language issue. The sentence in line 1466 "The former corresponds to the dynamic response of the dam crest monitoring point, while the latter refers to the dynamic response of the arch crown cantilever monitoring point." is unclear to me.

It is really nice to observe how the quality of the paper improves based on reviewers' opinions and the high effort of authors.

Author Response

Round 2 Reviewer 3

The importance of the 7.76 billion m³ capacity is explained to me in the answer. Thank you. I suggest adding a similar sentence to the article.

Authors’ reply: Respected Reviewer 3 thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. Your suggestions made a huge improvement in our research paper. We’re sorry because we believed that the damage caused in the past (and those that could have occurred) as a result of the dam bombings mentioned from line 97 to line 115 would have been sufficient to enlighten the readers on this subject.

Round 2 Reviewer 3

The explanation for figure 3 is placed in the answer. Why not in the article. It is stated in the figure caption that it is a "constitutive curve". Please add the reference (source) of that.

Authors’ reply: Thank you for this suggestion. It would have been interesting to include these details throughout the paper. However, think this is not necessary and the length of the article would further increase.

Round 2 Reviewer 3

Ad question 13 of my original review

The answer is that the damage is averaged along the arch direction. It is clear. But how single damage in one section of the arch... How "damage" is measured and defined. (there is no unit near the vertical axes in figures presenting "damage average")

Authors’ reply:

 

Round 2 Reviewer 3

Probably it is a language issue. The sentence in line 1466 "The former corresponds to the dynamic response of the dam crest monitoring point, while the latter refers to the dynamic response of the arch crown cantilever monitoring point." is unclear to me.

Authors’ reply: Our meaning is that the dynamic response analysis has been carried out through monitoring points in two parts of the dam body…namely the dam crest (fig. 29) and the arch crown (fig. 30).

This is just an introductory sentence for these Figures.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx