Studies on the Thermodynamic Properties of C/ph Irradiated by Intense Electron Beams
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Introduction, the first line. Please add “electron” – “When a pulsed electron beam that irradiates the outer layer…”.
2. Introduction: “Many studies [15-21] are mainly…”. Please avoid combining many references in one brackets. You should pay more attention to these works and illuminate their contribution to the field.
3. Experimental Section. Please provide the names of all equipment used in this research (digital oscilloscope etc.).
4. Please add the references for the equations (1)-(3).
5. Did the authors use “Ly12 Aluminum” as reference material? Please add some information about this material (why it was used, properties, etc.).
6. Figures 9, 11, and 12 present the data on stress distribution. Was this stress compressive or tensile? This should be somehow explained in the text.
7. At the end of the paper it would be better to provide some perspectives on using the results obtained in research/manufacturing etc.
Author Response
I would like to express my deep gratitude to the review expert for your guidance and comments. I will revise our paper as your suggestions. Thanks a lot.
- Introduction, the first line. Please add “electron” – “When a pulsed electron beam that irradiates the outer layer…”.
Response to (1): Thank you for your reminder. The first sentence is revised as “When a pulsed beam (x-rays, laser or electron beam) that irradiates…”
- Introduction: “Many studies [15-21] are mainly…”. Please avoid combining many references in one brackets. You should pay more attention to these works and illuminate their contribution to the field.
Response to (2): Thank you for reminding us. We rewrite this sentence as “Many studies are mainly focused on the ablation mechanism [18], mechanical properties and constitutive model of the C/ph composite [19-21]. In addition to…”
- Experimental Section. Please provide the names of all equipment used in this research (digital oscilloscope etc.).
Response to (3): In the experiment, Tektronix 4104B oscilloscope is used to record the probe measurement signal.
- Please add the references for the equations (1)-(3).
Response to (4): The reference is added before equations (1)-(3) in the paper.
9. Lin P. Impulsive coupling characteristics of materials irradiated by electron beam[C]. IOP Conf. Series: Materials Scienceand Engineering 397 (2018) 012024 DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/397/1/012024
5. Did the authors use “Ly12 Aluminum” as reference material? Please add some information about this material (why it was used, properties, etc.).
Response to (5): Yes, Ly12 Aluminum was used as reference material for its material properties are stable. The density of Ly12 aluminum is 2785 kg/m3, and its vaporization energy is 11kJ/g.
- Figures 9, 11, and 12 present the data on stress distribution. Was this stress compressive or tensile? This should be somehow explained in the text.
Response to (6): It is compressive stress. Fig.9 shows the peak values of the compressive stress at different position. Fig.11 shows the shock waves at different time. Figure 12 shows the time variation of the thermal shock wave at a fixed point.
- At the end of the paper it would be better to provide some perspectives on using the results obtained in research/manufacturing etc.
Response to (7): good suggestion! We revised conclusion (4): According to the incident energy fluence on the c/ph, the impulse load and wave propagation characteristics can be easily obtained. The studies obtained will provide a basis for the anti-radiation hardness and survivability assessments of the aerospace.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Congratulations. The work is good, however, there are some concerns about your work, which can be resolved, improving the work and your understanding. Please see the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
I would like to express my deep gratitude to the review expert for your guidance and comments. I will revise our paper as your suggestions. Thanks a lot.
We checked the references and typesetting of articles. Thank you for reminding us that we should be more careful.
1.Figure 1 is not well framed with the dimensions shown. The authors mention that it has a
dimension of 30 mm in diameter. In the image, it is visible that the sample has the shape of a
parallelepiped.
Response to (1): Sorry for misleading you. Figure 1 shows the structure of the raw materials. In the experiment, the raw material needs to be processed into a disc with a diameter of 30mm.
- 2. In this work, how many samples were needed? Did they work with only one or did they work with average values?
Response to (2): We have prepared 30 samples. Four targets are tested in one shot. The energy fluence of one shot is an average value. The accelerator is in the same state, but the energy fluence of the electron beam can be changed by adjusting the position of the probe in the magnetic field. “Different energy Fluence can be obtained by adjusting the position of the probe in the magnetic field” is added in section 2.1.
- 3. In chapter 2, it is necessary to specify the equipment and instrumentation used, namely the
make and model. If the authors think it relevant, they can mention errors and uncertainties of
the devices.
Response to (3): thanks a lot! We revised the paper as your suggestion. The modified part is indicated in red. In second paragraph, line 4 of page 4: In the experiment, Tektronix 4104B oscilloscope is used to record the probe’s measurement signal. Fig. 6 shows a typical waveform recorded by blow-off impulse probe.
- 4. In sub-chapter 3.1, when the authors state “The Monte-Carlo method is generally considered
to be a more accurate method in the calculation of electron beam energy deposition.”, they
should add some reference that meets the claim. Further on, when the authors state that “Therefore, the method of condensing history proposed by Berger is adopted.”, they should also add a reference.
Response to (4): The references are added in section 3.1. Thanks very much!
The Monte-Carlo method is generally considered to be a more accurate method in the calculation of electron beam energy deposition [27,28].
Therefore, the method of condensing history proposed by Berger is adopted [29,30].
- After the equations, the variables are displayed. It remains to add the units used for each one.
If the authors do not want to present the units when presenting the variables, they can do so in
a table of symbols, variables and constants used throughout the work. You can choose one of
these two solutions. So the work is more complete and clear.
Response to (5): We give the unit in section 3.2, which is in page 7:
Where R and r are respectively Eulerian and Lagrange coordinates ( m), t time ( second), and the other variables, ρ0 is the initial mass density (unit is kg/m3), V is the specific volume (m3/kg), u is the particle velocity ( m/s), SD is the partial stress ( Pa), P is the pressure ( Pa), Y0 is the dynamic yield strength (Pa), q is the artificial viscous force, a1 and a2 are the viscosity coefficient, c is the local sound speed (m/s), G is the shear modulus ( Pa), σ is the total stress (Pa), E is the specific energy (J/kg), ER(R, t) is the deposited specific energy rate (J/(kg×s)), which reflects the contribution of pulsed beam radiation to internal energy
- 6. In sub-chapter 3.3, the authors state that the numerical simulation agrees well with the experimental results. Did they calculate the error or deviation between the simulation and the experimental results?
Response to (6): We give the relative uncertainty of experimental results in section3.3, page 7. The changes are marked red. Thanks a lot! The changes show as following:
There are some small differences in the uniformity of C/ph composite. In the experiment, the relative uncertainty of electron beam energy fluence is about 15%, and the relative uncertainty of impulse measurement is less than 10%. In the numerical simulation, the selection of material parameters also affects the results. The relative uncertainty of experimental results and numerical calculation is less than 20%. The numerical simulation agrees well with the experimental results.
- 7. In the conclusions, the authors should substantiate the results/conclusions obtained using
comments based on theory. Were the results as expected?
Response to (7): According to the weak shock wave theory, the thermal shock wave attenuation of C/ph is better than that of Ly12 aluminum, as shown in figure 13. In conclusion (2): When the electron beam with the same energy flux irradiates carbon phenolic and Ly-12 aluminum targets respectively, the peak value of thermal shock wave in C/ph is lower than that in Ly-12 aluminum at the same position. This improved C/ph composite has excellent attenuation performance of thermal shock wave. The experimental results are consistent with the theoretical results.
fig.13
- 8. In the conclusions, they should also argue the results and compare them with works by other
authors, if possible.
Response to (8): The C/ph materials of this experiment are different from those of other authors. The experimental results will be different from each other.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The reasons for choosing the given material, its structure and mechanical properties are poorly described in the Experiment section. Please add.
Authors name the material c/ph and sometimes as C/ph. Is there any difference, or typo only?
A closer description of the radiation device used is missing. What is the significance of its use? Are the properties of the radiation generated in this way similar to radiation in the space environment?
Chapter 3.3 presents the results of the simulation. A more detailed description of the difference between experimentally obtained data and simulation data is missing. How accurate (mathematical/statistical expression) is the created model and how can it be used in a real application?
After minor changes, I recommend the article to publish.
Author Response
I would like to express my deep gratitude to the review expert for your guidance and comments. I will revise our paper as your suggestions. Thanks a lot.
1.The reasons for choosing the given material, its structure and mechanical properties are poorly described in the Experiment section. Please add.
Response to (1): We added the description in sectin2.1. The density of the C/ph material is 1430 kg/m3, smaller than metal materials, but its specific stiffness is large. The Young’s modulus in X1 direction is 7 GPa.
- Authors name the material c/ph and sometimes as C/ph. Is there any difference, or typo only?
Response to (2): sorry! It is a typo. We have made a unified inspection and revision in the article.
- A closer description of the radiation device used is missing. What is the significance of its use? Are the properties of the radiation generated in this way similar to radiation in the space environment?
Response to (3): Thanks a lot! We added the description in section 2.3. The "Flash II" electron beam accelerator is a low-energy, high-current pulsed relativistic electron beam accelerator, which is used to simulate the thermo-mechanical effects caused by the interaction between X-rays and materials in nuclear explosion. X-rays and electron beam are similar in thermodynamic effects.
4 Chapter 3.3 presents the results of the simulation. A more detailed description of the difference between experimentally obtained data and simulation data is missing. How accurate (mathematical/statistical expression) is the created model and how can it be used in a real application?
Response to (4): There are some small differences in the uniformity of c/ph. In the experiment, the relative uncertainty of electron beam energy fluence is about 15%, and the relative uncertainty of impulse measurement is less than 10%. In the numerical simulation, the selection of material parameters also affects the results.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Congratulations on the new version of the work.
After the small changes, the work looks more complete, meeting the requirements of the magazine.
