V-Shaped Dynamic Morphology Curve: A Sustainable Approach to Automotive Wheel Design
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper studied how to design the automobile wheel using VDMC. The VDMC is indeed a novel design method in the field of automobile design. However, from my personal perspective, in terms of writing standards, analytical rigor, content depth, and the level of innovation in research findings, this paper may not yet fully meet the academic standards required by this journal. There are some points that the author can consider for revision:
1. In section 2.1 Overview of the VDMC Theory, the content seems to be Repetitive and redundant and lacks relevant reference literature.
2. In Table 2, the Type is not consistent with V-shaped diagram according to the rule of classification in Figure 4.
3. What is the definition of a control point? In lines 232 to 254, why do both Category 2 and Category 3 have one control point, but Category 4, Category 5, and Category 6 still only have one control point?
4. There are a lot of mistakes in the titles of the sections and figures, including two instances of Figure 5, two instances of Section 4, and two instances of Section 4.3.2. Please double-check these formatting mistakes.
5. In Figure 3, what do x-axis values, such as ‘x1’, represent?
6. The author should ensure that the figures clearly convey their intended meaning to the readers. Figures 6 to 14 all depict variations under the same skeleton structure, but they do not show how the transformations are made. Some structures are very similar, making it difficult for readers to quickly and clearly understand the rules of each variation. Additionally, the author has not provided a detailed explanation of these variations in the text.
7. In section 2.4, it does not present each computation method in a concise and clear manner, making it difficult for readers to understand.
8. In section 4.3.1 Design Efficiency, the time data obtained here appears to lack sufficient rigor. How does the author justify that the time required for the design task is as stated? Additionally, I believe that this time is not solely influenced by the design method.
9. In section 4.3.2 Brand Consistency, how does the author determine the brand consistency score? What is the rule of the brand consistency scoring?
10. In section 4 Discussion, the VDMC (Virtual Design Model Construction) is proposed here for the first time, which does not align with its reference in the previous section.
11. In section 5 Conclusions, the limitations of this study are mainly discussed, but a comprehensive summary of the study is missing. I suggest that the author should integrate the section 4 Discussion into section 5 Conclusions.
Author Response
Comments 1: In section 2.1 Overview of the VDMC Theory, the content seems to be Repetitive and redundant and lacks relevant reference literature.
Response 1: Thank you for your observation. Section 2.1 has been streamlined to eliminate redundancy, and citations to foundational works (e.g., The Technical Aesthetic Foundation and Application Research of Aluminum Alloy Wheel Design) have been expanded to contextualize VDMC’s theoretical basis (Page 3, line141-143).The following reference has been added to Section 1 (Introduction) to strengthen the literature review:
- Bo, W.; Qiu, Y.R.; Jin, H. Research on Parametric Generation of Automobile Styling Based on Grasshopper. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE 24th International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability, and Security Companion (QRS-C), 2024, pp. 998–1003.
- Puangchaum, W.; Rooppakhun, S.; Phunpeng, V. Parametric Design and Optimization of Alloy Wheel Based on Dynamic Cornering Fatigue Test. In Proceedings of the 5th IIAE International Conference on Industrial Application Engineering, 2017.
Comments 2: In Table 2, the Type is not consistent with V-shaped diagram according to the rule of classification in Figure 4.
Response 2: We apologize for this oversight. Table 2 has been revised to align with the classification logic in Figure 4. For example, The six major categories in Figure 4 (Bb, Ba, Bc, Cc, Ac, Ca) have been aligned with the classifications in Table 2 to facilitate understanding and comparison. (Page 5-8, Table 2 ，line213-308).
Comments 3: What is the definition of a control point? In lines 232 to 254, why do both Category 2 and Category 3 have one control point, but Category 4, Category 5, and Category 6 still only have one control point?
Response 3: A dedicated paragraph has been added in Section 2.2.2 to define control points and explain their role in asymmetric transformations. For instance, In Categories 2 and 3 (Ba and Bc combinations), the control point is applied to one side of the basic shape, introducing either an inward or outward curvature. This single control point, while applied to one side, influences the overall geometry of the curve, breaking the symmetry of the basic shape and creating a dynamic transformation. In Categories 4, 5, and 6 (Cc, Ac, and Ca combinations), the control point is applied in a manner that affects both sides of the curve simultaneously, even though only one control point is used. This is because the control point is strategically positioned to guide the global shape of the curve, ensuring that the resulting transformations—such as double broken lines with inward or outward curvature or contraction-expansion features—are achieved with a single control point. (Page 8, line266-308).
Comments 4: There are a lot of mistakes in the titles of the sections and figures, including two instances of Figure 5, two instances of Section 4, and two instances of Section 4.3.2. Please double-check these formatting mistakes.
Response 4: Thank you for catching these errors. All duplicated titles (e.g., Figure 5) have been renumbered.The titles and numbering of all figures and tables throughout the text have been standardized.
Comments 5: In Figure 3, what do x-axis values, such as ‘x1’, represent?
Response 5: The caption of Figure 3 has been expanded to clarify that x1,x2,x3x1​,x2​,x3​ denote critical points where the curve’s slope or direction changes, governing piecewise-defined functions (Page 6-7, line 237-254).
Comments 6: The author should ensure that the figures clearly convey their intended meaning to the readers. Figures 6 to 14 all depict variations under the same skeleton structure, but they do not show how the transformations are made. Some structures are very similar, making it difficult for readers to quickly and clearly understand the rules of each variation. Additionally, the author has not provided a detailed explanation of these variations in the text.
Response 6: Thank you for this practical suggestion. Redundant figures (e.g., repetitive skeletal transformations in Figures 6–14) have been removed, and only representative intermediate processes are now illustrated. For instance, Table 3 (Facial Skeleton) now highlights key variations (Page 10-12).The text provides a detailed explanation of the different types of linear skeletal structures, while also clarifying the meaning of the numbers presented in the figures. Additionally, Figure 8 and 11 has been included to further illustrate the process of VDMC variation. These explanations can be found on pages 10-12, lines 370-488.
Comments 7: In section 2.4, it does not present each computation method in a concise and clear manner, making it difficult for readers to understand.
Response 7: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your comment regarding Section 2.4, we have revised the presentation of the computation methods to ensure clarity and conciseness. We have restructured the content to clearly separate and explain each computation method: progressive computation and superposition computation. The progressive computation method is now described in a step-by-step manner, highlighting the recursive transition formulae and the final skeletal configuration. Similarly, the superposition computation method is outlined with formulas for two, three, and four types of skeletal structures, with clear explanations of how merging operations generate distinct solutions. We have also included corresponding figures to visually illustrate each process, making the flow of operations more intuitive for the reader. These adjustments should improve the readability and understanding of the section. (Page 16-17, line 558-610).
Comments 8: In section 4.3.1 Design Efficiency, the time data obtained here appears to lack sufficient rigor. How does the author justify that the time required for the design task is as stated? Additionally, I believe that this time is not solely influenced by the design method.
Response 8:Thank you for your insightful comment. In response to your concern about the rigor of the time data, we would like to clarify that the design time was measured using a screen-monitoring software (ManicTime), which accurately tracked the active working time of each participant. The timer was activated when the design file was opened and stopped when the final design was saved, ensuring that only actual design time was recorded. Non-active periods, such as breaks and software loading times, were automatically excluded, further enhancing the accuracy of the recorded data.Regarding your point about other factors influencing the design time, we acknowledge that the design task's duration could be affected by various elements beyond the design method, such as individual proficiency, design complexity, and personal working styles. To address this, we conducted a pre-experiment proficiency test to ensure that the two groups were comparable in terms of software proficiency and experience. Furthermore, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to control for individual differences in software proficiency, confirming that the VDMC method still resulted in a significant reduction in design time.(Page 22-23, line733-740，line767-770).
Comments 9: In section 4.3.2 Brand Consistency, how does the author determine the brand consistency score? What is the rule of the brand consistency scoring?
Response 9: Thank you for your comment. The brand consistency score was determined based on a scoring rubric developed from the brand’s core design guidelines. Key design elements such as symmetry, curve angles, and spoke patterns were evaluated and assigned specific weights (e.g., symmetry: 20%, curve angle: 15%, spoke area: 15%). Each design was rated on a 0-1 scale for each indicator, and the total score was calculated as a weighted sum, then converted to a 10-point scale.Three independent experts, including the brand’s chief designer, a professor of automotive engineering, and a certified industrial design expert, conducted blind reviews, unaware of which group (experimental or control) produced each design. The final brand consistency score for each design was the average of the three experts’ ratings. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa coefficient, which showed a high level of agreement (Kappa = 0.78, p < 0.01).(Page 23-24, line774-785，line816-822).
Comments 10: In section 4 Discussion, the VDMC (Virtual Design Model Construction) is proposed here for the first time, which does not align with its reference in the previous section.
Response 10: We apologize for this inconsistency. VDMC has been standardized and consistently applied throughout the entire text.
Comments 11: In section 5 Conclusions, the limitations of this study are mainly discussed, but a comprehensive summary of the study is missing. I suggest that the author should integrate the section 4 Discussion into section 5 Conclusions.
Response 11: As suggested, the Discussion section (Section 4) has been merged into Section 5 (Conclusions), providing a cohesive summary of findings and implications (Pages 25-26，line870-919).
Thank you again for your constructive feedback, which has significantly strengthened our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- How does the proposed VDMC theory compare with existing design methodologies in terms of adaptability to diverse design needs beyond automotive applications?
- What criteria were used to select the dataset of wheel designs, and how representative is it of the broader spectrum of automotive wheel designs across different brands and markets?
- Could you clarify the rationale behind focusing primarily on V-shaped curves with 0 or 1 control points while planning to study curves with 2 or more control points in future research?
- There have been very important election articles about Sustainable recently. Please talk about these two articles in detail. It will add depth to your article.
Sustainable Thermoplastic Material Selection for Hybrid Vehicle Battery Packs in the Automotive Industry: A Comparative Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16192768
Sustainable material choice for construction projects: A Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment framework based on BIM and Fuzzy-AHP
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107805
- How does the hierarchical structure of skeletons (e.g., linear, facial, foraminal) ensure consistency in the design process, and is this hierarchy applicable to other product design domains?
- In the progressive computation section, the authors propose recursive formulas for skeletal transformations. Could you provide practical examples of their application to specific wheel hub designs?
- How does the integration of VDMC with the Grasshopper plugin ensure scalability and real-time collaboration among designers?
Author Response
Comments 1: How does the proposed VDMC theory compare with existing design methodologies in terms of adaptability to diverse design needs beyond automotive applications?
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. A new paragraph in Section 5 contrasts VDMC with traditional CAD and AI-driven methods, emphasizing its balance of parametric flexibility and brand consistency (Page 25-26, line870-919).
Comments 2: What criteria were used to select the dataset of wheel designs, and how representative is it of the broader spectrum of automotive wheel designs across different brands and markets?
Response 2: Thank you for your comment.Section 2.2.1 now specifies that the dataset includes wheels from global brands (e.g., BMW, Audi) and design databases to ensure market representativeness (Page 4, line166-174).
Comments 3: Could you clarify the rationale behind focusing primarily on V-shaped curves with 0 or 1 control points while planning to study curves with 2 or more control points in future research?Response 3: Section 2.2.2 explains that curves with 2+ control points tend to approximate straight lines, limiting morphological diversity. This rationale is now explicitly stated (Page 6, line216-230).
Comments 4: There have been very important election articles about Sustainable recently. Please talk about these two articles in detail. It will add depth to your article.
Response 4: Thank you for your observation. Section 2.1 has citations to foundational works (e.g., The Technical Aesthetic Foundation and Application Research of Aluminum Alloy Wheel Design) have been expanded to contextualize VDMC’s theoretical basis (Page 3, line141-143).The following reference has been added to Section 1 (Introduction) to strengthen the literature review:
- Bo, W.; Qiu, Y.R.; Jin, H. Research on Parametric Generation of Automobile Styling Based on Grasshopper. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE 24th International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability, and Security Companion (QRS-C), 2024, pp. 998–1003.
- Puangchaum, W.; Rooppakhun, S.; Phunpeng, V. Parametric Design and Optimization of Alloy Wheel Based on Dynamic Cornering Fatigue Test. In Proceedings of the 5th IIAE International Conference on Industrial Application Engineering, 2017.
Comments 5: How does the hierarchical structure of skeletons (e.g., linear, facial, foraminal) ensure consistency in the design process, and is this hierarchy applicable to other product design domains?
Response 5:Thank you for your thoughtful comment.The hierarchical structure of skeletons (e.g., linear, facial, foraminal) plays a crucial role in ensuring consistency in the design process by providing a clear framework for designers to follow. Each level of the hierarchy corresponds to a different type of design element with increasing complexity, allowing for a structured and organized approach to generating variations. For example, linear skeletons define basic structural shapes, while facial and foraminal skeletons introduce more detailed and specific design features. By following this hierarchy, designers can systematically adjust parameters at each level, ensuring that the resulting designs remain consistent with both functional requirements and aesthetic guidelines.This hierarchical structure can indeed be applied to other product design domains. In fields such as industrial design, architecture, or even user interface design, a similar approach could be used to guide the design process. For instance, in product design, a hierarchical approach could begin with structural elements (e.g., frame), move on to functional components (e.g., buttons, screens), and then refine visual details (e.g., textures, colors). The fundamental idea is that each level of hierarchy builds upon the previous one, enabling a consistent and iterative design process.
Comments 6: In the progressive computation section, the authors propose recursive formulas for skeletal transformations. Could you provide practical examples of their application to specific wheel hub designs?
Response 6: The Breyton GTS case study in Section 3 has been expanded to include a step-by-step application of progressive computation (Page 18-21, Figure 19，22，23).
Comments 7: How does the integration of VDMC with the Grasshopper plugin ensure scalability and real-time collaboration among designers?
Response 7:Thank you for your comment.The integration of VDMC with the Grasshopper plugin ensures scalability and real-time collaboration by allowing designers to quickly adjust design parameters and visualize changes instantly. This facilitates efficient iteration and adaptation across various design scales, maintaining consistency and flexibility. Additionally, Grasshopper’s visual interface enables multiple designers to collaborate on the same project simultaneously, promoting real-time updates and faster decision-making.However, one limitation of this integration is that it relies on a certain level of familiarity with parametric design tools, which may require training for some designers. Additionally, while it supports real-time collaboration, large-scale design teams may still face challenges in managing complex models or handling computational performance with highly detailed designs.
Thank you again for your constructive feedback, which has significantly strengthened our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe increasing demand for efficiency, brand consistency and sustainability in automotive design has led to the exploration of innovative methods. This study investigates the impact of V-shaped dynamic morphology curve (VDMC) on design efficiency, brand consistency, and sustainability outcomes in automobile wheel design. The topic is interesting and before it can be further considered, some improvements need to be made.
1) In Abstract of ‘V-shaped dynamic morphology curve’, the first letter needs to be capitalized.
2) It is suggested to add more annotations in Figure 2.
3) Section 2.2 contains too much content and it is suggested to divide it into several sub-sections reasonably.
4) In Figure 6-14, the numbers, including 1,2,3, inside and near the circular area are not necessary and should be deleted as they may hinder readers' reading and even mislead them.
5) In Figure 6-14, many design processes are listed. Is it necessary to showcase them all? It may only be necessary to showcase typical intermediate processes. Journal papers, unlike dissertations, focus more on efficiency.
6) Some newly published articles are recommended to be added. For example, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2024.114274.
7) Based on ‘Wheel Rim Design Variants Generated Through VDMC Variation’ in Table 3, have any other analyses been conducted, such as strength, vibration, and other performance analyses?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
Comments 1: In Abstract of ‘V-shaped dynamic morphology curve’, the first letter needs to be capitalized.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the term to "V-shaped Dynamic Morphology Curve (VDMC)" in the abstract and throughout the manuscript to ensure consistency. This correction can be found in the Abstract section (Page 1, line 16).
Comments 2: It is suggested to add more annotations in Figure 2.
Response 2: We appreciate your suggestion. Additional annotations, including labels for axially symmetric and non-axially symmetric VDMC types, have been added to Figure 2 to clarify the classification criteria. This update can be found in Section 2.2.1 (Page 5, Figure 2).
Comments 3: Section 2.2 contains too much content and it is suggested to divide it into several sub-sections reasonably.
Response 3: Thank you for your feedback. Section 2.2 has been restructured into two sub-sections: 2.2.1. Curve Extraction and Classification and 2.2.2. Control Point Analysis, with further subdivisions for clarity. This reorganization improves readability and logical flow (Pages 4–6，line165, line215).
Comments 4: In Figure 6-14, the numbers, including 1,2,3, inside and near the circular area are not necessary and should be deleted as they may hinder readers' reading and even mislead them.
Response 4: We agree that the numbers could cause confusion. The numbers in Figure 6-14 hold specific significance; however, due to the large number of images, they could potentially confuse the reader. Therefore, Figure 6-14 has been reorganized and reformatted to align with the style of Table 3. Additionally, explanatory text has been added above the figure for further clarification. (Page 10-12, Table 3，line406-461).
Comments 5: In Figure 6-14, many design processes are listed. Is it necessary to showcase them all? It may only be necessary to showcase typical intermediate processes. Journal papers, unlike dissertations, focus more on efficiency.
Response 5: Thank you for this practical suggestion. Redundant figures (e.g., repetitive skeletal transformations in Figures 6–14) have been removed, and only representative intermediate processes are now illustrated. For instance, Table 3 (Facial Skeleton) now highlights key variations (Page 10-12).
Comments 6: Some newly published articles are recommended to be added. For example, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2024.114274.
Response 6: We appreciate the recommendation. The following reference has been added to Section 1 (Introduction) to strengthen the literature review（page 4 ，line151-155）:
- Bo, W.; Qiu, Y.R.; Jin, H. Research on Parametric Generation of Automobile Styling Based on Grasshopper. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE 24th International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability, and Security Companion (QRS-C), 2024, pp. 998–1003.
- Puangchaum, W.; Rooppakhun, S.; Phunpeng, V. Parametric Design and Optimization of Alloy Wheel Based on Dynamic Cornering Fatigue Test. In Proceedings of the 5th IIAE International Conference on Industrial Application Engineering, 2017.
Comments 7: Based on ‘Wheel Rim Design Variants Generated Through VDMC Variation’ in Table 3, have any other analyses been conducted, such as strength, vibration, and other performance analyses?
Response 7: While the current study focuses on design efficiency and brand consistency, we acknowledge the importance of performance analyses. Future work will integrate structural and dynamic evaluations, as noted in Section 5 (Limitations, Page 25).
Thank you again for your constructive feedback, which has significantly strengthened our manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI accept it published in current form.
