Flashover in Aircraft Cargo Compartment at Different Pressures: Experimental and Modeling Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents an experimental study on flashover characteristics of different sizes of n-heptane pool fires and applies FDS simulation to predict flashover. The conclusions are clear and reliable, indicating that the possibility of fire occurrence and the onset time of flashover are both lower at low pressure. The manuscript also provides suggestions for improvement, such as analyzing both the average upper layer temperature and heat flux at floor level.
It is suggested that the experimental part of the manuscript be removed, and only the simulation part be retained. The experimental part is similar to the content reported in Reference 31, but the results are inconsistent, which may confuse readers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe areas that the article focuses on is meaningful. There are some suggestions for the article.
1) The main point of the study is about the flashover, and the identification of the flashover in your experiment is defined in line 108-109: 'the occurrence of flashover...to burn in this study'. However, are the criteria sufficient enough? Is it suitable to choose two boxes to measure the flashover? Is the arrangement of setup reasonable enough？ More detailed explanation or verified experiments should be conducted.
2) The figure of actual experiment setup could be given to replace Figure 2. Even if you want to show the fire scene, the whole experiment setup should be seen in the figure for the experiment pictures cannot be seen in any other position in the whole article.
3)It is also very important to provide flashover process during the experiments, and the fire development figures which could show the whole setup are recommended to give in the article.
4)Although the cell size is calculated by Eq.3,4, The mesh independent test is recommended to taken.
5) For comparison, two pressure points to reveal the pressure effects is relatively poor. Further, the experiment of 60kPa, 40cm pool size is also lack which is very unfavorable for comparative research. The experiments under this conditions should be supplied and at least one pressure point such as 24 kPa FDS simulations should be conducts and the figures of experiments or simulations should also be provided.
6) Some simulation and experiment data in 3.2 section are poor fit and the repetitive experiments could help better.
7) The math model between the pressure, fire sources, flashover, temperature heat flux, etc. should be concluded in the data analysis. Currently, the analysis is not in-depth enough in the article.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish writing should be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe phenomenon of flashover is the most dangerous of fire phenomena and certainly requires intensive scientific research. Authors should correct or explain a few things before publication:
- Introduction, The authors write that there is an increase in fire accidents in airplanes, but they do not cite any specific statistical result or citation.
- Do the authors actually use the free FDS or the paid Pyrosim?
- The choice of n-haptan is questionable. N-heptane is probably not a common substance carried on airplanes. According to the rule of research methodology, the tested substances should correspond to possible real substances. Have the authors performed tests for other substances?
- The given formulas should be centred in the text.
- Referring to line 103 "More experimental details are available in an earlier publication [31]." It is not possible to find the cited article. Have the authors of this article performed modeling tests and are they also co-authors of the article [31]? Can the authors provide the DOI of the article [31]?
- This sentence requires a broader explanation: "with a 3 cm thermal resistant calcium silicate finish was constructed in Guanghan (96 kPa) and Kangding (60 kPa), respectively". The selection of pressures and the method of generating them in the test chamber are also unclear.
- Fig. 5, the device markings are unclear, and the caption under the drawing requires a change of font.
- The font in Table 1 requires correction.
- Line 203 "Big temperature difference exists in case of 60 kPa, too. " What do the authors mean by "big"? What value corresponds to this definition?
- Conclusions require a revision. First of all, the authors should indicate what comes from their research and what their results can be used to.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.The formatting of the revised article is still very rough. The format of the figure such as the border line styles, the font type, the width of the lines should be unified. The formula in the article should be modified.
2. The data of the figure 1 is so small. If you cannot find more data, the figure should be replaced with the text description.
3. Figure 4 should be given in the section 3. The experimental condition table should be given in section 2 (some part of the Table 2)
4. The flashover figures in simulation could be also given compared with the Figure4.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageExtensive editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors revised the text according to the suggestions. Now, it can be published.
Author Response
Thank you for your time.
