Methodology Proposal and 3D Model Creation of a Car Steering Wheel
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In its current form, the article is not suitable for publication.
This is a scientifical paper and it contains only 9 items of literature (without Internet sources).
Such an amount is unacceptable in a Applied Sciences article the more so that the subject of the work is very widely published.
Minor improvement.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presents the design of a car steering wheel model, via 3D cad.
The authors develop the prototype with variants for the model.
The work is divided into sections that complement each other. The methodology was presented in detail and the results obtained are in accordance with the proposed objectives.
The conclusion supports the results that were obtained in this phase of product development.
I indicate the publication of the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for submitting your manuscript, please see my comments below.
1. The summary is too general, it briefly presents the results obtained.
2. The introduction mainly focuses on the subject of "3D printing", which is not part of this article, but only a future stage of research. It would be reasonable to present how the design process works (since this is the topic of this manuscript).
3. Are steering wheels without airbags produced for regular car customers? Which manufacturer will allow it to reduce the safety of the driver? Of course, we omit solutions for special cars (e.g. sports cars). Running such a simulation is therefore at least of low utility. Would it be difficult to change the design to include an airbag?
4. A lot of editorial errors, i.e. a period before square brackets (e.g. line 50, 60, 72...), text in brackets forming a separate sentence (between dots, e.g. line 334)
5. I have doubts about the source of Figure 11 (source 21 refers to another topic).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The topic is relevant to current context but needs to incorporate all the modifications suggested in the below mentioned form.
|
● Abstract underscores the content of work as the flow of description doesn’t seems will attract any reader. Existing gaps have to be highlighted like why this work is necessary? Significance of the work need to be highlighted. ● Abstract focus on some tangible numerical outcome value to justify the work carried out ● Plagiarism shows 11% which is well within the limit as per journal criteria but try to bring it below 10% ● Lot many grammatical corrections have to be addressed in the whole manuscript ● Self-citations have to be avoided to maintain the ethical standards. If any such aspects found, its not a good practise ● 11 to 22 references are to be re checked as website UR links will not be considered as reference. Any particular article/book chapter/patent can be selected as references. |
|
● Introduction part looks to have only one references of recent year such as 2022, 2021 or 2020, which is quite unrealistic. As a whole manuscript has got around 22 citations but hardly one article of recent means somewhere authors are not considering the recent trends into account while drafting the manuscript introduction. There need to be understanding of existing work with details. There is still lot of scope for improvising the introduction section as it talks limited in terms of the current trends on CAD models aspects. You are free to select other relevant articles as well- · doi.org/10.3390/polym13172905 doi.org/10.3390/polym13172951 · There are no details about process map or road map for the entire work? How the validation of work is done? · The introduction section looks to be limited in terms of genetic algorithm content. There is no discussion of ANSYS simulation study ... |
|
● In table 1 the company names are considered, but are they being taken with consensus of company or not? If not then its better to name with different names (its not a good practise) ● Line 220 to 257 is well known aspects. Do check whether it is necessary to consider as its literature survey ● Figure 9 to 19 seems to be logos of many of the companies. Do cross check how the context can be build on the logos ● Figure 3 talks about Multiphysics but what are the values for load cases and how is the boundary condition applied to it? ● For more information on the CAD modelling the following articles can be considered with nature inspired approaches ● doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7040186 ● doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2021.03.074 ● doi.org/10.3390/ma14144039 |
|
● Results and discussions are acceptable only with any correlation between the current used material and existing models in public domain ● There is no comparative study with analytical/experimental/simulation for validation of the extracted results ● Validation analysis is missing the comparative study not even a single citation is considered inside this? |
|
● The discussion section lags in explanation with respect to the work carried out. there are no citations in discussion section to compare the work with existing materials ● Conclusion looks to be generic need to compile the outcomes and state based on the tests conducted and convey how best this can fit in the current context for any application. ● In conclusion section, values have to be displayed with explanation. It's better to mention the salient features of the entire work in terms of bullet points with current context |
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Quality English proof reader required to proof read the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
This is not a scientific article!
Where is Methodology - as it is in the title of this article?
Any flow chart?
In my opinion, it is not suitable for publication in this journal.
Minor impovement should be done.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for your replies. The indication of future plans sheds new light on the manuscript, maybe it will be more interesting and justified if some of the planned works are completed and included in it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors haven't addressed all the comments properly. Its important to look into each of the comments meticulously and addressed with justification.
English proof reader recommendation is a must for the whole manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I'm happy to see improved your paper.
My sugestion is:
Add to Introduction section information about CAx systems based on CAD platform. See for example references:
- Łukaszewicz, A.; Szafran, K.; Józwik, J. CAx techniques used in UAV design process. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 7th International Workshop on Metrology for AeroSpace (MetroAeroSpace), Pisa, Italy, 22–24 June 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 95–98. [Google Scholar]
- Dankwort, C.W.; Weidlich, R.; Guenther, B.; Blaurock, J.E. Engineers’ CAx education—It’s not only CAD. Comput.-Aided Des. 2004, 36, 1439–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Łukaszewicz, A.; Skorulski, G.; Szczebiot, R. The main aspects of training in the field of computer-aided techniques (CAx) in mechanical engineering. In Proceedings of the 17th International Scientific Conference on Engineering for Rural Development, Jelgava, Latvia, 23–25 May 2018; pp. 865–870. [Google Scholar]
- Rodríguez-Sevillano, Á.A.; Casati-Calzada, M.J.; Bardera-Mora, R.; Nieto-Centenero, J.; Matías-García, J.C.; Barroso-Barderas, E. Rapid Parametric CAx Tools for Modelling Morphing Wings of Micro Air Vehicles (MAVs). Aerospace 2023, 10, 467. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace10050467
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I have no more comments
Author Response
Thank you very much for your evaluation. We really appreciate it. Your comments helped to improve our manuscript.
