Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Though, the manuscript has been well-written, and covers a pressing issue, I would like to suggest the following corrections to the authors.

1. According to a 2008 PhD dissertation of Lynette W. Cheah titled “Cars on a Diet: The Material and Energy Impacts of Passenger Vehicle Weight Reduction in the U.S.”, it is stated that “every 10% reduction in vehicle weight, the fuel consumption of vehicles is reduced by 5-7%” is a general thumb rule. This fuel consumption of vehicles should have reduced with the development of newer reduced weight vehicles, do the others have an updated value of fuel consumption reduction?
2. The line 29-30, “….the fuel consumption will be decreased on average by approximately 29 0.4L/100km…” is this 0.4 L per 100 km for Light Transport Vehicle (LTV) such as cars or Heavy Transport Vehicles (HTV) such as trucks?
3. I suggest if you are using abbreviations, try to be uniform in using them, like topology optimization, is abbreviated in line 33 and then is mentioned as TO in line 38, whereas it is written as topology optimization in line 40-41. Please check thoroughly the manuscript.
4. Recent work by Jihong Zhu (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.09.020) on topology optimization should also be included to provide updated information.
5. Line 153-154, “According to Farias, Schommer, Haselein, Soliman and de Oliveira [13],…”, I would suggest to use et al, like “According to Farias et al. [13],…” which the authors have used in the introduction section. Similarly it should be done to all references with more than 2 or 3 authors according to the journal guidelines.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper entitled "Optimization of Brake Calipers Using Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing" was well organized and written to apply the topology optimization in a real automotive component. There are several suggestions to improve the paper such as:

• It would be good to provide a clear scope of the research somewhere in introduction.
• The authors used a student racecar instead of typical passenger vehicle. It would be great to provide any explanation regarding the selection of the vehicle.
• Because of the TO, not only the weight but also some other changes (like max stress) are likely to be followed. It would be good to discuss regarding additional changes after the TO.
• The limit of study might be another good information that could be provided in the paper.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

-introduction is very long, it is unnecessary

-why authors explain so much about the benefit of TO in the introduction part

- the equations format can be improved, it is different during the text than other parts of the article, some of them are very small, some of them are very big, the font does not match also

-Images need to be centered and captioned in the center as well

-There are a lot more equations that are needed in this article

-there are some unnecessary sections like vehicle dynamics, they do not need to have a separate section to be explained.

-Where the authors got the images from, needs to be explained

- figure 5 looks unprofessional 

- some graphs like figure 6 is not of great quality

- the methodology part is very long and needs to be summarized

- figure 11 needs to be edited as it is very hard to read the text part of that

- the general formatting of the different parts of the article do not match

- The conclusion part needs to be summarized

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf