Numerical Simulation of the Degree of Protection for K9 Artillery Position under Explosion Scenario Using METT+TC

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is well introduced but it lacks of scientific content for a JCR journal. The article presents the results of the performance of a military structure under an explosion by using a commercial software and unfortunately, there is no any improvement of thematerial formulation, novel simulation technique, etc. Moreover, there are no experimental results to validate the results from simulations.

Although I think that the work should be rejected, I would like to make some comments that may help to improve the manuscript.

1. Lines 64-66. What are those additional considerations? Explain them a little bit and not only write the references.
2. Figure 1. The figure does not seem original, so the authors have to reference the source.
3. Figure 2. The figure on the left has a typo ("March" instead of "Mach").
4. In table 2, air and TNT density does not have units. Besides, the meaning of the parameter gamma is not explain (I guess it is the ratio of specif heats).
5. Line 163 to 164. What type of material models (constitutive equations) are your using for the different materials? Why do you only need the strength (compresive or tensile) and density for concrete? Why the Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio (or other elastic constants) are not used? What are the sources of all the materials constants? The authors have a lot of work to do in this section.
6. Line 182-189. Section 3.3. Why do we have 00 load case, 0.0m distance .... 00kg explosive when introducing the case 1, 2 and 3. I think that there are some errors with these numbers.
7. Legend in figures 6, 8 and 10. Magnify the legend. What are you plotting? What are the values for the different colours?
8. What is the rotation angle? How is it calculated with the data from table 3? (Lines 215 to 224).
9. There are few references for a scientific article.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the comments. Please refer to the revised manuscript and attached answers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents a development of a novel methodology to evaluate the degree of protection for military facilities using finite element analysis. According to the reviewer’s opinion, the paper is well-structured and clear. The topic is interesting and falls within the aim of the journal. In addition, the results are well-presented and could be helpful to further develop the same topic. Therefore, the paper can be accepted for publication in the current form.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the comments. Please refer to the revised manuscript and attached answers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In the paper is not mentioned how the determination of pressure-time was performed, to introduce the values of pressures in figure 1, used for calculus.

In figure 2 "March" Front is written.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the comments. Please refer to the revised manuscript and attached answers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

1. Just a few slight improvements highlighted in the pdf document need to be addressed.
2. The introduction part missing relevant discussion on the use of the FEM methods applied in the previous studies, 6 papers don't seem to be an exhaustive review.
3. The results of the study for the 3 cases rotational angles calculated should be easily readable in terms of graph to include the protective level thresholds so that looking on it reader could estimate the protection margin.
4. Pictures quality need to be improved, in terms of empty spaces around and colours should have "Headlight" and "Lighting" options to be ticked off to be more contrast.
5. The research methods are not described so that can be reproduced.
6. Modelling technique is given by general phrases and no details are given.
7. The result of this paper can be used not only for military but also for civil structures e.g. terrorist attack, industrial accidents etc. and hence it should be improved to account for that.
8. The simple validation is missing and hence the validity of the results can be seriously questioned since the reader does not know what models, ticks and options have been selected to deliver the simulations.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors appreciate the comments. Please refer to the revised manuscript and attached answers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for addressing the comments. However, it was found that the paper was reworked in a very short time, simply to fulfil the comments without going into details e.g.

• The number of references were added without giving any details of what has been reviewed and how it is it relevant to the work. In the previous comment about the introduction part missing relevant discussion on the use of the FEM methods applied in the previous studies, 6 papers don't seem to be an exhaustive review. Additional number of references added didn't make it more clear but increased the size of the document by reference list.
• Lines 196-197 reflects the previous comment but it was simply copy-pasted without full understanding of the problem which is a total contradiction. How it is possible to have a complete reflection with coefficient 1.8 and referring to the original paper? In case of complete reflection, the coefficient is 2, why it is stated as 1.8? Did you recalculate everything from the previous version to have that included? Probably not.
• Too many excessive text about the restriction after each zero rather than a clear statement in the review and introduction part.
• This makes the paper of no use in terms of applicability of the obtained results and reproduction. 
• The validation is also not mentioned and no how referenced.
• Model is not described.
• Comments in relation to the pictures is not addressed as said.
• The research methods were not addressed so that can be reproduced.
• The simple validation is missing no need to validate it on military objects but other experiments performed. 
• The calculation of the displacement and rotational angle is not explained.
• Too much of "The authors appreciate the comments." but too little of implementation.

This makes an impression of not neat work and therefore, having those comments and that this is a military secret the paper is better to stay a secret. Since this will be a waste of time for other researchers to read and not finding it useful.

Reviewer would recommend the authors to double-check everything and make sure it is crystal clear and gives the details which could be used by other researchers to develop and build their studies on this research. Clear statement of originality, significance and rigour in conclusions should explain the work done. 

Author Response

Please fine the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Despite a number of not clear moments throughout the paper due to military secrets, the subject is interesting and might be useful and relevant to those who need to evaluate the protective performance of structures. It brings some interesting information to the scientific and industrial community. I therefore recommend the paper for publication.