Experimental Investigation on Ignition Effects of Fuel Tank Impacted by Bi2O3-Reinforced PTFE/Al Reactive Material Projectile
, Rongxin Li, Zhenru Gao, Shuangzhang Wu, Yuchun Li * and Jiaxiang Wu *
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work discovers the damage mode of a fuel tank and the ignition mechanism of kerosene when different reactive materials impact at different velocities. The authors conducted many experiments on the ballistic impacts of PTFE/Bi2O3, aluminum, and steel projectiles on kerosene tanks. The experiments are well-described and properly organized. The authors explained well how the impact velocity affects the ignition of kerosene. They also unveiled the damage degree of impact when the fuel tank was filled at different levels. The work is worth reading for readers. The reviewer recommends publication for this manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you for your recognition of our work, and wish you a healthy and happy life.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is focused on a very interesting topic. However, they are several irregularities which should be improved.
The aim of the study, as the last paragraph of the introduction, should be clearly described.
The results should be presented with basic descriptive statistics such as for example standard deviation.
The main claims and comparisons should be statistically analysed with a given level of significance.
The results should be critically commented on and compared with already published studies.
Author Response
Point 1: The aim of the study, as the last paragraph of the introduction, should be clearly described.
Response 1: The aim of the study has been added at the last paragraph of the introduction.
Point 2: The results should be presented with basic descriptive statistics such as for example standard deviation.
Response 2: Due to the uncontrollability of the impact test, this paper did not take replication measures. We think that even without descriptive statistics, our research can be well explained.
Point 3: The main claims and comparisons should be statistically analysed with a given level of significance.
Response 3: The research in this paper mainly focuses on the impact phenomena of PABs and the difference between PABs and other traditional materials impacting fuel tanks, so no more comparative experiments are set up. Statistical analysis cannot be completed well due to the limitation of the number of experiments. We will pay attention to this aspect in the future research work.
Point 4: The results should be critically commented on and compared with already published studies.
Response 4: As mentioned in the introduction, this paper is the first time to study the impact fuel tank behavior of PAB reactive material, so the conclusions can not be compared with the published studies. In addition, although some published studies have studied the impact fuel tank behavior of other PTFE/Al based reaction materials, it is difficult to have a rational judgment standard due to the different materials and manufacturing processes used by various researchers.
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections. Please correct.
2. Introduction is not detailed enough. We would like a more detailed justification of the problem based on the latest scientific literature. „The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. Please highlight controversial and diverging hypotheses when necessary. Keep the introduction comprehensible to scientists working outside the topic of the paper.“ Please correct.
3. Figure 1(b) is not mentioned in the text.
4. Materials and Methods should be described with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on published results. The article misses this. Please correct.
4. It is incorrect when the section starts with a table. (3. Experimental Results and Phenomenon Description). Please correct.
5. The list of references is not very wide.
Author Response
Point 1: Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections. Please correct.
Response 1: Abbreviations/Initialisms have been added at the first time they appear in each of three sections
Point 2: Introduction is not detailed enough. We would like a more detailed justification of the problem based on the latest scientific literature. „The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. Please highlight controversial and diverging hypotheses when necessary. Keep the introduction comprehensible to scientists working outside the topic of the paper.“ Please correct.
Response 2: Introduction has been supplemented.
Point 3: Figure 1(b) is not mentioned in the text.
Response 3: Figure 1(b) is mentioned in section 2.2.
Point 4: Materials and Methods should be described with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on published results. The article misses this. Please correct.
Response 4: More details on the preparation of the material have been added.
Point 5: It is incorrect when the section starts with a table. (3. Experimental Results and Phenomenon Description). Please correct.
Response 5: The location of the table has been modified.
Point 6: The list of references is not very wide.
Response 6: As the introduction is supplemented, the number of references has increased accordingly.
