Using the Impulse Method to Determine High-Pressure Dynamic Burning Rate of Solid Propellants
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study is about an experimental method for obtaining the burning rate of solid propellants. The method of obtaining the burning rate of a solid propellant is a very classical problem, and there are various methods. In particular, the method dealt with in this study corresponds to a method of estimating the burning rate through repetitive calculations based on the measured pressure value for a cylindrical grain, and is one of the methods that have already been widely used for a very long time. The authors proposed an impulse method that complements the mass flow rate method, and claims that the proposed method can be more accurate compared to the existing method. In the end, the method proposed by the authors seems to be possible from estimating the mass flow rate more accurately than the existing method obtained through theory, and is believed to be a reasonable method. The proposed method is an improvement of the method for obtaining the burning rate that has been used for a long time, and it is thought that it can be helpful in the same research field. However, it is difficult to accurately understand the author's claim because the description of the proposed technique is insufficient in the submitted manuscript. In order for this manuscript to be published in this journal, it seems that the following items need to be corrected and supplemented.
- It is necessary to describe the data processing presented in 2.2.1 more clearly and in detail. For example, the process of obtaining Is(theoretical) presented in Figure 4, guessing Is(actual), or deriving an accurate value are not presented. It is briefly presented in 3.2, but in this study, the process is believed to be the most important, and more detailed explanation is needed. Overall, it is thought that it will be helpful to understand the author's method if a flow chart of the process or algorithm for deriving the burning rate proposed by the author is presented.
- Equation (9) is wrong. Please check and correct.
- The numbers in the figure below on page 4 should be corrected to figure 4.
- There is a typo in table 1. GAP-1 -> GAP-2
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable feedback. We have carefully reviewed your valuable suggestions for our manuscript, and we believe that the previously uploaded manuscript does have the problems and deficiencies you described. We have thoroughly discussed and addressed each of your comments. Here are our responses to each of the comments:
- Regarding your valuable comment: “Overall, it is thought that it will be helpful to understand the author's method if a flow chart of the process or algorithm for deriving the burning rate proposed by the author is presented.” Due to the limitation of space, we have put the detailed process for obtaining the actual specific impulse and the burning rates by the Impulse Method into the revised manuscript, which uses only the GAP-1 sample as an example.
- Regarding the error you point outed: “Equation (9) is wrong. Please check and correct.” We have made corrections in the revised manuscript.
- Regarding the error you point outed: “The numbers in the figure below on page 4 should be corrected to figure 4.” We have made corrections in the revised manuscript.
- Regarding the error you point outed: “There is a typo in table 1. GAP-1 -> GAP-2.” We have made corrections in the revised manuscript.
All revisions to the above valuable comments are highlighted in the new manuscript for your convenience. In addition, we have put the nomenclature into revised manuscript to facilitate the reader's understanding of the paper.
We would like to express our gratitude for your review of our manuscript and the suggestions provided. Your feedback has been very valuable in improving the quality of our paper and advancing our research work. Thank you once again.
Yours sincerely.
Jiahao Liu
E - mail: ljhchosen1@mail.nwpu.edu.cn
Reviewer 2 Report
A new method to test the burn rate of solid propellants is described in this manuscript. Research work is full of innovation and new findings. There is a great demand for research on solid propellants in the present era. So, these results should be encouraged.
Recommendation: Accept
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We would like to express our sincere appreciation for your positive evaluation and acceptance of our manuscript. Your thorough review and valuable feedback have greatly contributed to the improvement of our paper. Thank you for recognizing the significance of our research work. We are grateful for the opportunity to share our findings with the scientific community through your esteemed journal.
Yours sincerely.
Jiahao Liu
E - mail: ljhchosen1@mail.nwpu.edu.cn
Reviewer 3 Report
This work demonstrated the use of an impulse method to measure the burning rate of two types of solid propellants and compared the effectiveness of the impulse method with the mass flow rate method. Overall it is well-organized and the impulse method proposed is very interesting for researchers in this solid propulsion community. Here are some minor suggestions for the authors to address:
1. There are many grammar mistakes, please improve your English writing.
2. Some data in Table 2 are highlighted in pink color, what does this mean?
3. Figure 8: why GAP and SQ2 have different pressure effects when comparing burning rates at different pressures? For example, at low pressure, the impulse method is higher for GAP but lower for SQ2, while at high pressure, the impulse method is lower for GAP but higher for SQ2. It seems that there are different mechanisms for different types of propellants when comparing these two methods. Can the authors provide more explanation?
Too many grammar mistakes. The English writing of this manuscript needs to be carefully improved.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable feedback. We have carefully reviewed your valuable suggestions for our manuscript, and we believe that the previously uploaded manuscript does have the problems and deficiencies you described. We have thoroughly discussed and addressed each of your comments. Here are our responses to each of the comments:
- Regarding your valuable comment: “There are many grammar mistakes, please improve your English writing.” In the revised manuscript, we have made every effort to thoroughly review and revise the grammar, as well as refine the overall language.
- Regarding your question: “Some data in Table 2 are highlighted in pink color, what does this mean?” The highlighting is intended to make it convenient for you to check the burning rate data referred to in this sentence on page 9 of the manuscript, "According to the data of SQ2-1 from Table 4, the burning rates at similar pressures (24.50 MPa) during different periods were determined to be 17.99 mm/s, 18.00 mm/s, and 18.04 mm/s." These highlights have been removed in the revised manuscript.
- Regarding your valuable comment: “Figure 8: why GAP and SQ2 have different pressure effects when comparing burning rates at different pressures? For example, at low pressure, the impulse method is higher for GAP but lower for SQ2, while at high pressure, the impulse method is lower for GAP but higher for SQ2. It seems that there are different mechanisms for different types of propellants when comparing these two methods. Can the authors provide more explanation?” In the revised manuscript, we have included a more detailed explanation of this, which is highlighted on pages 9 and 10.
In addition, we have put the nomenclature into revised manuscript to facilitate the reader's understanding of the paper.
We would like to express our gratitude for your review of our manuscript and the suggestions provided. Your feedback has been very valuable in improving the quality of our paper and advancing our research work. Thank you once again.
Yours sincerely.
Jiahao Liu
E - mail: ljhchosen1@mail.nwpu.edu.cn
