CAD-MBSE Interoperability for the Checking of Design Requirements Based on Assemblability Indicators
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the chapter 3. the abbreviation ASP was used but wasn’t explained in the previous text. That should be briefly explained before.
Dear authors,
here are some remarks:
1. Figure 5. is in poor quality (watermarks present) and it is hard to read the text placed in the boxes. That should be corrected prior publishing.
2. In the Table 2. what does “Nb” represents? If it is the abb. of the number, it should be stated as “No” or “no”.
3. Figure 9, 10 and 11 does not address the units for total assembly time.
4. The authors should consider including the weight factors as there are several criteria present when evaluating the resulting assembly sequence plans. In the presented example there is an only one suitable solution that meet required criteria, but what happens when there are several appropriate results (ASPs)? Is there an optimality criterion to address the best solution?
5. Regarding the Figure 12, I’m not sure that the spider diagram is the best for visualization of the calculated criteria. If it is possible try to draw the line or area which represent the margin of the suitable result.
Author Response
I would like to thank all the reviewers for their constructive comments and here is a response to each of the comments:
Comment 1: In the chapter 3. the abbreviation ASP was used but wasn’t explained in the previous text. That should be briefly explained before.
Answer 1 : The abbreviation of ASP were mentionned in paragraph 3.2. 2.
Comment 2: Figure 5 is in poor quality (watermarks present) and it is hard to read the text placed in the boxes. That should be corrected prior publishing.
Answer 2 : Figure 5 was redesigned.
Comment 3: In the Table 2. what does “Nb” represents? If it is the abb. of the number, it should be stated as “No” or “no”.
Answer 3 : Nb were changed by No
Comment 4: Figure 9, 10 and 11 does not address the units for total assembly time.
Answer 4: The unit of time is the second. Further modifications were made to Figures 9, 10 and 11.
Comment 5: The authors should consider including the weight factors as there are several criteria present when evaluating the resulting assembly sequence plans. In the presented example there is an only one suitable solution that meet required criteria, but what happens when there are several appropriate results (ASPs)? Is there an optimality criterion to address the best solution?
Answer 5: Given the predefined criteria, it is very rare to have two assembly sequences with the same score. However, if the system engineer ends up with several ASPs then the designers team will choose the most optimal solution. This clarification has been added in the paragraph 3.2. 4. Analysis and validation.
Comment 6: Regarding the Figure 12, I’m not sure that the spider diagram is the best for visualization of the calculated criteria. If it is possible try to draw the line or area which represent the margin of the suitable result.
Answer 6: To obtain a better joining sequence, the values of the assemblability indicators should be minimised. Based on Figure 12, ASP3 is the sequence with the smallest area (colored in green), which reflects the choice of ASP3 as the best assembly sequence. These clarification were added in paragraph “4. Results and discussion” and in Figure 12.
Thank you.
Reviewer 2 Report
This article is through the collaborative work of system engineers and designers together in the process of realizing
the mechanical system to generate the best assembly sequence. And through the reducer example to verify that the
proposed method is of practical value. It has certain research value and reference significance, and the method has
been verified by examples. But this article also has some corresponding problems.
1. The formula numbers involved in the article are not aligned. It is recommended to unify the formula numbers in one column.
2. Picture 5 is not clear enough, there is a background watermark, and it should be remade. In Figure 3, the font is small,
which causes the picture to be unclear. It is recommended to enlarge the font.
3. There are format problems in individual paragraphs in the text. For example, "Line 203" "Line 255", the first letter of
the paragraph is not indented. The first letter of "246 line" "252 line" is capitalized and so on. It is recommended that
the author carefully compare the submission format and carefully look for the typesetting problems in the article before publishing.
4. The main content of this article focuses on describing how the proposed method meets the assembly quality of the
original design. You know, for each mechanical product, its manufacturing cost, assembly quality, production time, etc.
The design scheme produced after they are unified and coordinated with each other is a scheme that is truly applied to
actual manufacturing. So I hope that the author can add some related content about manufacturing cost and production
time to the article, or take the reducer as an example.
Author Response
I would like to thank all the reviewers for their constructive comments and here is a response to each of the comments:
Reviewer 2
Comment 1, 2 and 3 : Further changes have been made to the text in response to comments.
Comment 4: The main content of this article focuses on describing how the proposed method meets the assembly quality of the original design. You know, for each mechanical product, its manufacturing cost, assembly quality, production time, etc. The design scheme produced after they are unified and coordinated with each other is a scheme that is truly applied to actual manufacturing. So I hope that the author can add some related content about manufacturing cost and production time to the article, or take the reducer as an example.
Answer 4: The article discusses the requirements for the design stage of a mechanical system which influences the quality of the design solution afterwards. This obviously has an impact on the manufacturing cost and production time. In this article we discuss the collaborative work that brings together only the system engineer and the designer during the design process. In this context, manufacturing is the stage that follows design and therefore the manufacturing cost and production time will be mentioned later in the work that completes the production cycle of the system. Based on this Remark we have added more precision to this subject in the proposed approach part.
Thank you
Reviewer 3 Report
- What is the main question the study addresses?
It is presented in the abstract:
Currently the problem is how to ensure the exchange of data between the SE, who has a global view of the product, and the designer, who is a Computer Aided Design (CAD) specialist, in order to validate the design solution of the mechanical assembly and to define the most appropriate assembly sequence that allows for a better quality.
- Is it relevant and interesting?
Optimizing design processes are always up to date. They are related to the subsequent stages of production related to specific costs. Preliminary quality prediction in a computer environment is an advantage.
- How original is the theme?
The topic is relevant from the point of view of mechanics and computer design. Modern CAD systems are applied.
- What he adds to the topic area compared to other published materials?
The research is specific and accurate results for the respective design are given. An optimized process is presented.
- Is the paper well written?
The report is structured correctly. The engineering design and the components used are described in details.
- Is the text clear and easy to read?
The report is precisely written.
- Do the conclusions correspond to the evidence and arguments presented?
Yes.
- Do they answer the main question asked?
Yes.
The report is written at a very high scientific level. Everything is understandable and clear. A big plus is that the open source software FreeCAD is also included.
Only, a small note: Table 2 exist, but is missing in the main text.
Author Response
Table 2 has been added to the main text
