Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

1. Page 7- Figure 1 shows the materials tested show necking and degrading after 6% elongation.

this degradation of stress beyond 6% engineering strain becomes significant in localised blast,
particularly when the material is exposed to elevated temperature due to the fireball. the state
of stress is characterised by temperature softening. Perhaps this can be discussed in the paper?
2. Page 7 lines 135-140- “with only 9% increase in stress from its yield…” I don’t see that in the
Figure 1.
3. Page 15 line 226- Figure reference error.
4. It is already known (in the work of Jacob et al (2007) that the no-measurable correlation can
be found between the dimensionless impulse and dimensionless deflection when the stand-off
effect is ignored. Thus, what is the significance of Figure 5 in page 15? Page 26-27 -Figure 10
repeated twice.
5. Page 16-lines 250-252- is arguable
6. Pages 24-Rupture performance and page 25-lines 372-376. The authors have cited the work
of Langdon et al [5] to, ARS, HHA, RHA and IRHA materials, would it not be better if a
discussion on the value of Hopkinson’s scaled distance Z (or similar dimensionless
parameter) to compare the blast energy reduction vs the stand-off.
7. Section 6- page 25-onward Rupture performance: it is evident that the configurations of the
charge and loading gives rise to impulsive loads. A non-dimensional impulse is defined which
characterises the ratio of the total potential impulse imparted by the charge to the impulse
transmitted to the plate. This parameter can be used to characterise the rupture impulse of the
panels. Perhaps this can be added/discussed in the paper.

Вам также может понравиться