Experimental and Numerical Studies on Ground Shock Generated by Large Equivalent Surface Explosions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article addresses an important and very interesting topic of the experimental and numerical studies on ground shock generated by large-equivalent surface explosions, which is appreciated. The study includes the experimental, theoretical and numerical research. The purpose of this paper was evaluated the velocity and attenuation coefficient of ground shocks from large equivalent explosion and determine the minimum safe distance for a variety of structures. In addition, the analysis on ground shocks caused by large-equivalent surface explosions was carried out. The Reviewer has some concerns regarding the introduction, results, conclusions and references. Generally, in this paper the English language is good, but some sentence should be more clearly (too long). Furthermore, check the text of Native Speaker and please check all paper. Please use the passive voice. In opinion of Reviewer this paper should be subjected to major revision.
Other comments:
1. Introduction
Generally, the introduction is good but in opinion of Reviewer should be added the description/impact of seismic loads (soil-steel bridge, bridge, tunnel, structure etc.) and wave propagation in soil (e.g. the papers form last 5 years).
2. Line 227 – please explain what is mean “good agreement”.
3. Please show the numerical model with boundary conditions.
4. Figure 10 is not clear (is too small). Please improve it.
5. All tables should be improved according template of this Journal
6. Please improve conclusions. In current version are really poor. The Reviewer cannot see the most important conclusions from your paper (please use bullets).
7. What is the next step of your research? Please add.
8. The References should be improved. Generally, the scientific paper should be based on the literature from all world.
9. This is good Journal for this research? The Reviewer cannot see any citation form this Journal.
Finally, I hope that my comments will be helpful for the authors.
Author Response
Responses to the comments on manuscript (ID applsci-1824130)
Dear editor:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Experimental and numerical studies on ground shock generated by large-equivalent surface explosions”, ID: applsci-1824130. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in blue in the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are attached in following. In additional, we put the revised manuscript behind the comments. Please see the attachment.
We are looking forward to further information on this manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
Chenxi Xia
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, unfortunately, I cannot recommend your paper for publication for the following reasons:
- The description of the experiment is very inaccurate. It is not clear from Figure 3 how the orientation of the sensors to the explosive charge was, and it is not clear which axis of velocity is shown in Figure 7.
- Overall, the photos are of poor quality.
- Calculating the wave propagation velocity c using equation 1 should be easy to determine from the measurement data. If Figure 7 shows the time from detonation, the velocity here is quite different.
- The presented numerical model of the experiment is described very inaccurately. Based on the experiment, an axisymmetric model would have to be used here. The vibration velocity of the measuring boxes depends on the inertia and would have to be considered in the model.
Kind regards
Author Response
Responses to the comments on manuscript (ID applsci-1824130)
Dear editor:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Experimental and numerical studies on ground shock generated by large-equivalent surface explosions”, ID: applsci-1824130. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in blue in the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are attached in following. In additional, we put the revised manuscript behind the comments. Please see the attachment.
We are looking forward to further information on this manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
Chenxi Xia
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, the ground shock generated by large-equivalent surface explosions has been studied experimentally and numerically. Two real surface explosion tests with 1 and 10 tons of TNT were performed to find data for ground shock acceleration and velocity. The velocity and attenuation coefficient of the ground shock generated by the 1 t TNT are determined. Finite element analysis was performed in high fidelity software LS-DYNA and the obtained results were compared with theoretical ones, and a good agreement was observed. The manuscript is almost well prepared and the results are interesting, however some comments have been left on the attached file that should be addressed in the revised file. The left comments will help the authors to further improve the quality of the manuscript. Please find comments on the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Responses to the comments on manuscript (ID applsci-1824130)
Dear editor:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Experimental and numerical studies on ground shock generated by large-equivalent surface explosions”, ID: applsci-1824130. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in blue in the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are attached in following. In additional, we put the revised manuscript behind the comments. Please see the attachment.
We are looking forward to further information on this manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
Chenxi Xia
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your improving. The Reviewer have concerns to the preparation of article, this please check the template of this Journal.
Author Response
We are very grateful to the reviewer's comments, and thanks for the reviewer's conscientious and enthusiasm work.
Reviewer 3 Report
All my comments are addressed appropriately in the revised manuscript. The paper is well improved, and from the reviewer point of view it is worthwhile to publish after resolving the following minor items:
1) Please pay attention to the "Error! 143 Reference source not found" in lines 100, 102, 120, 143, 144, 183, 229, and 232 of the provided PDF of the revised manuscript. Please resolve this error and provide related reference sources.
2) In the conclusion part and for number (1), start the sentence with "The" instead "the".
Author Response
Responses to the comments on manuscript (ID applsci-1824130)
Dear editor:
We are particularly grateful for your efforts to review our manuscripts entitled “Experimental and numerical studies on ground shock generated by large-equivalent surface explosions”, ID: applsci-1824130. We appreciate your invaluable and constructive comments. We have considered your comments and incorporated them into our new revised paper. Revised portions are marked in blue in the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are attached in following. Please see the attachment.
If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us
Best regards,
Chenxi Xia
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
