Topology Optimization Based on SA-BESO

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I have revised the whole paper word for word, including the abstract, introduction and conclusion. I believe that the language of the article will be improved after this revision. If there is any deficiency, please continue to inform me.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents a topology optimization procedure. In general the paper is well written and organized. However I suggest the following 

1. The manuscript needs English editing; some sentences have typos e.g. in introduction “….the contribution degree of the to the structure”

2. I recommend changing the title of the paper and to be specific; you can start with Topology optimization of ….

3. There a significant amount of research have been done on topology optimization methods and applications, however the introduction lists only few.  In fact, there already some research address the application but not included.

4. The conclusions  part presents already known information. I recommend you  revise it and focus on the most important findings of the study.

The paper could be published after addressing the above points.

Author Response

I have revised the whole paper word for word, including the abstract, introduction and conclusion. I believe that the language of the article will be improved after this revision. If there is any deficiency, please continue to inform me.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In this manuscript the authors proposed a topology optimization method based on bi-directional evolutionary structural optimization (BESO) combined with Simulated Annealing algorithm in order to reduce the complexity of the optimized structure. The manuscript is presented in a well-structured manner. The topic is original  in the field. Authors showed that SA-BESO algorithm allow to obtain topological configurations with lower structural flexibility without sacrificing computational efficiency when compared to the BESO method. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and they  address the main question posed. The references have been adequately cited, discussed and referenced. The results are clearly presented and the conclusions are supported by the results. The paper is suitable for this Journal. The manuscript deserves publication.

Author Response

I have revised the whole paper word for word, including the abstract, introduction and conclusion. I believe that the language of the article will be improved after this revision. If there is any deficiency, please continue to inform me.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper now looks better and could be published.