Two-Step Multi-Objective Reliability-Based Design Optimization of Aircraft Wing Structures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The presented work introduces a two-step technique that begins with multi-objective optimization of wing structure followed by its reliability analysis. The study is interesting and well-written. However, the authors can consider the following concerns to further improve the quality of the manuscript.
1. In the abstract, please clarify how your results compare to the state-of-the-art and how your paper and results go beyond the state-of-the-art.
2. In the introduction (line 41), the authors reported that “In the past, many uncertainty quantification techniques have been proposed, 41 which are expected to analyze the reliability or failure probability of a design problem.” Please cite a few of them.
3. Several advanced methods have been proposed to predict or solve uncertainty quantification. In related work, authors must discuss those advanced methods in the manuscript (Data-driven deep learning-based attention mechanism for remaining useful life prediction: Case study application to turbofan engine analysis (epistemic uncertainty was discussed), also what the difference between this extended work and the prior work proposed in [24] and [25]. This should be clear after citing and reporting your prior work.
4. Some parameters in equation 2 are not well defined and explained. Please carefully check the rest of the parameters of the equation to ease your work readability and understandability.
5. In line 174, the novel technique solution.” Please clarify why you call it a novel technique solution. What is the difference between this solution and the existing one in the literature? Without clarification for its novelty, it can be a new solution or enhanced.
6. In line 221, A total of 14 design variables are considered from 2 groups of the aircraft wing. It is unclear what are those 14 variables. Where did you mention or explain them? Are they the ones mentioned in table 3? Please explain them briefly in line 221.
7. The proposed two-step multi-objective reliability-based design optimization method performance in this study must be benchmarked with the related literature contributions and further verified the proposed method optimization performance with fairness.
8. The conclusion need to be improved by clearly discussing the findings and reporting the limitations or future research directions.
Author Response
The presented work introduces a two-step technique that begins with multi-objective optimization of wing structure followed by its reliability analysis. The study is interesting and well-written. However, the authors can consider the following concerns to further improve the quality of the manuscript.
- In the abstract, please clarify how your results compare to the state-of-the-art and how your paper and results go beyond the state-of-the-art.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added more explanation.
- In the introduction (line 41), the authors reported that “In the past, many uncertainty quantification techniques have been proposed, 41 which are expected to analyze the reliability or failure probability of a design problem.” Please cite a few of them.
Answer: We have added references as suggested.
- Several advanced methods have been proposed to predict or solve uncertainty quantification. In related work, authors must discuss those advanced methods in the manuscript (Data-driven deep learning-based attention mechanism for remaining useful life prediction: Case study application to turbofan engine analysis (epistemic uncertainty was discussed), also what the difference between this extended work and the prior work proposed in [24] and [25]. This should be clear after citing and reporting your prior work.
Answer: We have added more review and explanation.
- Some parameters in equation 2 are not well defined and explained. Please carefully check the rest of the parameters of the equation to ease your work readability and understandability.
Answer: We apologize for the mistake. We have corrected the equation.
- In line 174, the novel technique solution.” Please clarify why you call it a novel technique solution. What is the difference between this solution and the existing one in the literature? Without clarification for its novelty, it can be a new solution or enhanced.
Answer: Thank you for your concerning. We have corrected as suggested.
- In line 221, A total of 14 design variables are considered from 2 groups of the aircraft wing. It is unclear what are those 14 variables. Where did you mention or explain them? Are they the ones mentioned in table 3? Please explain them briefly in line 221.
Answer: We have added more explanation and more details in Figure 3 of the revision.
- The proposed two-step multi-objective reliability-based design optimization method performance in this study must be benchmarked with the related literature contributions and further verified the proposed method optimization performance with fairness.
Answer: We agree with the reviewer and have been concerning about this point. We have added validation part in Section4 paragraph 3 (Figure 3 and Table 2).
- The conclusion need to be improved by clearly discussing the findings and reporting the limitations or future research directions.
Answer: We have added more explanation.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper addresses multi-objective optimization of aircraft wings with reliability analysis. The topic of the paper is important as simultaneous treatment of various design objectives, and generation of the best possible design trade-offs provides invaluable insight, which can be used for making informed decisions (here, concerning the structure of the wing, etc.). The paper is generally well written and contains sufficient original contribution. It can be recommended for publication after addressing the following issues:
1) State of the art review is insufficient in terms of accounting for recent works on efficient multi-objective optimization of expensive computational models, also with reliability/tolerance analysis. Some of the relevant works that should be included in the reference list are: 10.1109/TAP.2022.3145462, 10.1108/EC-05-2019-020, 10.1002/mmce.22124, 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3028911, 10.1016/j.ejor.2021.08.021, 10.1016/j.knosys.2020.106726, 10.2514/1.C035500, 10.1109/TMTT.2022.3193405, 10.1109/TAP.2022.3187665.
2) The quality of Fig. 1 should be improved (it is blurry).
3) Figure 4 should be equipped with a grid to easier identify the location of the point shown.
Author Response
The paper addresses multi-objective optimization of aircraft wings with reliability analysis. The topic of the paper is important as simultaneous treatment of various design objectives, and generation of the best possible design trade-offs provides invaluable insight, which can be used for making informed decisions (here, concerning the structure of the wing, etc.). The paper is generally well written and contains sufficient original contribution. It can be recommended for publication after addressing the following issues:
1) State of the art review is insufficient in terms of accounting for recent works on efficient multi-objective optimization of expensive computational models, also with reliability/tolerance analysis. Some of the relevant works that should be included in the reference list are: 10.1109/TAP.2022.3145462, 10.1108/EC-05-2019-020, 10.1002/mmce.22124, 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3028911, 10.1016/j.ejor.2021.08.021, 10.1016/j.knosys.2020.106726, 10.2514/1.C035500, 10.1109/TMTT.2022.3193405, 10.1109/TAP.2022.3187665.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added those in the review part.
2) The quality of Fig. 1 should be improved (it is blurry).
Answer: We have improved the quality of the figure.
3) Figure 4 should be equipped with a grid to easier identify the location of the point shown.
Answer: We have added grid to the figure, which makes it clearer.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for providing the revised version that has been improved. Therefore, I still have two major concerns regarding the revision done. First, in terms of the manuscript presentation (i.e., Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 7 are very small in size, and they are not readable). Please fix this issue and work on improving the paper presentation to enhance its reliability. Second, my first concern was not addressed, how do your results compare to the state-of-the-art, and how do your paper and results go beyond the state-of-the-art?
The authors reported adding more explanation, but this reviewer can’t see the added information has addressed my concern.
Author Response
Thank you for providing the revised version that has been improved. Therefore, I still have two major concerns regarding the revision done.
1) First, in terms of the manuscript presentation (i.e., Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 7 are very small in size, and they are not readable). Please fix this issue and work on improving the paper presentation to enhance its reliability.
Answer: Thank you for your comment. We apologize for the mistake. We have improved those figures.
2) Second, my first concern was not addressed, how do your results compare to the state-of-the-art, and how do your paper and results go beyond the state-of-the-art? The authors reported adding more explanation, but this reviewer can’t see the added information has addressed my concern.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion to improve this manuscript to get higher quality. We have addressed the point in recent version.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been considerably improved as compared to the original version and can be recommended for publication. This reviewer has no further comments.
Author Response
The paper has been considerably improved as compared to the original version and can be recommended for publication. This reviewer has no further comments.
Answer: Thank you for your help to improve this manuscript getting higher quality.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed my comments. This paper can be accepted after fixing the problem in Table 5. The advantages and disadvantages of the listed RBDO techniques are not provided in terms of Fuzzy, MCS and MPP.
Author Response
The authors have addressed my comments. This paper can be accepted after fixing the problem in Table 5. The advantages and disadvantages of the listed RBDO techniques are not provided in terms of Fuzzy, MCS and MPP.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestions to substantially improve this manuscript. We apologize for the mistake. We have improved the table as suggested. Please do not hesitate to let us know should there be further requirements.
