Experimental Measurements of Explosion Effects Propagating in the Real Geological Environment—Correlation with Small-Scale Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.       The abstract need to be improved to include numerical values that reflect the outcome.

2.       The paper seems indeed to suffer from a poor literature review. As usual in my review reports, I strongly suggest an accurate literature review before writing a paper. Often, the same problem has been already addressed (and better) by others, and often this was done several years ago, perhaps in different areas of research.And I suggest the authors to explain more the situation of this finding in introduction section.

3.       What is the purpose of a manuscript? Justify how this study will make a difference from the previous works. I think the research gap of this study is missing or not strong enough to justify this current research. Present your important findings and consider the main objectives.

4.       Materials and Methods: Some of the information provided is available in literature. So only a brief description to be given.

5.       In the Discussion of the manuscript, the analysis of the experimental results is too simple, only a few explanations of the experimental conclusions are seen, and the internal mechanism and the display, application and rationality of the model are not discussed, which is very important.

6.       I don't think it is appropriate to cite documents in the Conclusion, but it may be more appropriate to appear in the Discussion.

7.       A successful theoretical model cannot be short of verification, and additional data may need to be cited in the manuscript to verify the correctness of the model.

8. What is the main question addressed by the research? To compare of small-scale and full-scale measurement with their mutual correlation 12 using scaling dependances

9. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? yes

10. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? The study is targeted at the possibility 21 of correlating three types of results: small-scale simulations, numerical simulations, and a real full-22 scale experiment.

11. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Yes

12. Are the references appropriate? yes   

Author Response

The authors appreciate the reviewer's valuable comments. The authors also thank the reviewer very much for his good work. All comments have been implemented. Details of the implementation can be found in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents interesting findings and merits publication. However, the review suggests several major revisions to enhance the study's scientific rigor and data analysis:

1.     Fitting with limited points: The authors frequently use fittings with four or five points, which lacks statistical significance. The reviewer strongly recommends removing all such fittings and instead retaining only the experimental points that can be commented upon. This will improve the clarity and reliability of the results.

2.     Mechanics-based equation and scale effect analysis: Since the number of experiments is limited, and the goal is to analyze the scale effect, it is crucial to derive a mechanics-based equation that can be validated against both scaled and unscaled data sets. The review suggests employing classical attenuation laws, such as those proposed by Sabetta and Pugliese (1987), which are well-established in the seismic community. This approach will help understand the scale effect and its implications accurately.

Sabetta, F., & Pugliese, A. (1987). Attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from Italian strong-motion records. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 77(5), 1491-1513.

 

3.     Data processing improvement: The review finds the data processing in the paper to be suboptimal and recommends improving it. Since the authors used Python for their work, they can explore using the library "pyOMA" to understand how the dynamics of the soil strata affect the response. Furthermore, the authors could attempt to estimate the first mode of the deposit from the unscaled model, which would provide valuable insights into the soil behavior. Please refer to this in the paper

Pasca, D. P., Aloisio, A., Rosso, M. M., & Sotiropoulos, S. (2022). PyOMA and PyOMA_GUI: a python module and software for operational modal analysis. SoftwareX, 20, 101216.

 

In summary, while the experimental data is commendable, the paper would greatly benefit from incorporating a solid foundation from mechanics and existing literature.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the reviewer's valuable comments. The authors also thank the reviewer very much for his good work. All comments have been implemented. Details of the implementation can be found in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am happy with the revision

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper can be considered for publication