Modern Design Methods on Optimised Novel Aluminium Profiles

The present study reports “Comparison between numerical investigation and calculation methods on topology optimised novel aluminium profiles”. To make this article publishable the authors need to consider following comments:

Thank you for your valuable review comments.

1.-In general, the style of article looks like “a chapter of book” or “an overview” rather than an article. Please specify which one is targeted? With supposing an article, you need to show “application, novelty and result” of your paper more clearly in Abstract which I don’t see. E.g., residential buildings mentioned for an application, with lightweightness and corrosion-resistance benefits; the question is coming why don’t use titanium alloys and bionic designs? How Al-based structures can bear loads which 316L can (regarding buckling behavior)?

Thank you. This article is targeted to be a research paper. We have taken on board your comments and changed its style. We have made key changes in the title, abstract as well as throughout its core body.

In general, we are aiming to introduce structural aluminium members for lightweight construction, a great example is aluminium volumetric modular building systems. Of course, there are other alloys that can be successfully used for thin-walled elements too.

This kind of work is relevant to the optimisation that was conducted to optimise members against buckling. Consequently, we believe that the novel aluminium cross-section profiles possess a better buckling behaviour.

2.-Four pages introduction looks a little much for such papers, specially with this sectioning style which is not the journal format. Please follow the journal formats; delete sections (if there is no special reason for it) and concise it.

We have now reduced the introduction of the revised manuscript to conform with the journal format.

3.-Figures; Fig1: what is dimension (m, cm, or arbitrary)? Fig2: in (a), please use the measurement/instrument like ruler to show dimension of photograph; (b) mesh is as desired and define the accuracy and also this definition of loading is the style of software. For readers, you need to show by number and arrow. I don’t find explanation for (c) and (d), but where this cross-section located (Top bottom or middle!)? Fig4: no need to write 100.00 in all sketches (a-d), just write in caption all have 100x100; it reduces the size and complexity of figure. you’re and designer; you should consider them, not appropriating 4 pages for a simple figure configuration!

Thank you. We have checked and revised all figures and we added the dimensions and supporting information to make them self-explanatory. We have used 8 mm trias, C3D10 regarding accuracy which was mentioned in the previous version of the manuscript. All other comments please find them highlighted in the revised version of the manuscript.

4.-I don’t know how correct is “Comparison between numerical investigation and calculation” logically (lexical/meaning/scientifically), which is mentioned in title and explained in section 6, results. For me it’s like numerical and theorical comparison, “calculation” can mean anything.

The “Calculation” refers to the actual estimation process that methods like CSM and DSM produce. It’s not a theoretical comparison, because apart from the numerical simulations, actual calculations are conducted using CSM and DSM (and EC9 as well). Therefore, the word “calculation” is inaccurate.

We have now revised the title of the paper to: “Modern design methods on optimised novel aluminium profiles” and Section 3 describes accurately the comparative studies carried out.

5.-In my mind, Figures 9 and 10 can move to the annex (along with Table 5) and you can refer to the outcomes of them. 

Thank you. They have now moved to the Annex.

In the article, the numerical investigation and calculation methods on topology optimized novel aluminum profiles are compared. The work contains a sufficient amount of different calculated profiles to create a basis for evaluating the results. The results are appropriately described and discussed, and a good theoretical fundamentals for introduction are provided. I recommend the article for publication after minor modifications:

Thank you for your valuable review comments.

1. in Figure 6 (especially 6a), it would be advisable to think about a more appropriate resolution of individual curves, because it is rather unclear; especially Q3 and Q4 are not recognizable.

Thank you. We refined the resolution, changed the markers and increased the size of the entire graph.

2. in Figure 6a, it is visible (from FEA results) that less slender cross-sections demonstrate higher strain hardening in the postelastic region. – Why? Some idea / opinion should be discussed.

We have added a small paragraph under the Results section.

“As Fig. 6a suggests, stocky cross-sections demonstrate higher strain hardening in the post-elastic region. Slender cross-sections are less likely to develop strain hardening, since they tend to experience local buckling prior to yielding, [16].”

3. in Table 3, the values are disarranged, especially the percentages. In some cells, the numerical value and the sign "-" do not fit in the same line.

Thank you. We re-organised the structure to be more comprehensive.

4. it would be appropriate to discuss more about the sample S4 – why this sample behaved differently than S1-S3 (also discuss why percentage values for S4 are missing in Table 3).

Thank you. Table 3 is now updated to include all values. Regarding S4, we think it behaved accordingly to the increase in thickness. This is also shown in the updated Table 3, in the increase percentages, all the values are within “appropriate” (or similar to the pattern) margins. The great differences occur when the thickness is decreased to 3 and 2 mm, in S5 and S6 respectively, where the cross-section is considered slender. These differences are also presented on the updated Table 3.

5. describe in more detail the formula (3) for "Cross-sectional deformation capacity". Why the power in formula (3) is 3.6?

Of course. The formula is updated with its reference. These are directly derived from the reference paper; the structure of the formula follows some modifications in order to be applied to aluminium sections (since it was firstly developed to fit only stainless steel members). Page 6 includes a brief explanation about formula (3).

6. the stated conclusions are rather suitable for other types of works, or for the introduction, especially the first paragraph. Conclusions should summarize the specific points found in the experiments and discussion.

Thank you. We switched the last section from conclusions to discussion. We entirely removed the conclusion, since it is not mandatory for the template, and we believe that the discussion now covers all the key takeaways of the study.

In the future works, it is recommended to the authors to compare the calculated results with the experimentally obtained results.

Thank you for the very good recommendation. Indeed, we are in contact with a company in the UK who is willing to fabricate these sections. Then we will test and compare these against other standard aluminium sections in order to present a complete (more convincing) study.