Reviewer Comments:
Reviewer #2 Evaluations:
RECOMMENDATION: Major Revision
Sufficient New Physics in an Applied Area: No
Appropriate Length: Yes
Well Organized and Clearly Written: Yes
Good Title: Yes
Good Abstract: Yes
Clear Figures: Yes
Adequate References: No
TECHNICAL QUALITY RATING: Marginal
PRESENTATION RATING: Marginal
Reviewer #2 (Comments to the Author):
This work presents results from MD simulations of shock compressed aluminum crystals using an EAM potential. As it stands, the manuscript does not appear to contain much new, physical data, if any at all. Therefore, I am compelled to reject it in its present form.
The major issue with the work is that a quick literature search indicates that EAM models were used to study aluminum under shock compression some time ago. I refer the authors to the following three references, just as examples:
1. Belashchenko et al., High Temperature, 49, 656, 2011.
2. Kuksin et al., INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRACTURE, 162, 127, 2010.
3. Horstemeyer et al., THEORETICAL AND APPLIED FRACTURE MECHANICS, 37, 49, 2001.
For example, Reference #1 discusses an EAM model of aluminum under shock loading up to 260 GPa and 11500 K. Reference #2 discusses the effect of microstructure in the Al crystal on its material strength properties. In addition, Al under high pressure-temperature conditions has been the subject of an enormous number of quantum simulation efforts. As a result, it's not clear if Figs.1-4 of the paper are supplying the reader with any new physical information that wasn't already available in the open literature. Any revision of this paper would require a more serious review of the available data on Al under shock loading, especially concerning MD simulation.
The last figure (Fig. 5) might provide some new physical insight. However, the spherical voids used in the defect simulations sound ludicrously large. In addition, it's not clear that this issue wasn't already studied in at least one of the references I mentioned above. This effort also needs to be justified better if it is going to be part of the manuscript.
Third, Fig. 5 is confusing and the x-axis might be mislabeled. |