Design of Spider Web Biomimetic Structure Car Roof Handrails Based on Additive Manufacturing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript proposed a lattice based approach for the lightweighting of an automotive component, using AM. The topic of lightweighting of automotive components is surely of high industrial interest, on the other hand the specific component chosen is debatable. The paper proposed a valid simulation approach correctly supported by a testing of printed components. Section 2 needs an improvement better explaining both methods and materials. Results are valid and correctly described, while novelty should be better explained. The structure of the manuscript is valid but some critical issues that follow should be carefully addressed:

• Lines 11-13 should be rephrased.
• Lines 29-30 need references.
• A small analysis of other lattice structures applications in AM should be added in the introduction (i.e. 10.1007/s00170-025-15101-0).
• Same for line 33.
• Why PLA was used? It is notoriously not feasible for mechanical components.
• Why bare PA6 was not evaluated?
• Since the large use of ABS in automotive, why it was not considered?
• Please specify better the novelty of the paper in the introduction.
• Which simulation software was used?
• Please specify the provider of filaments.
• Number of external walls should be specified.
• The universal tester machine and main features (load cell etc) should be specified.
• How many replicas were tested for each material?
• The main data for simulation were derived from previous tests or by filaments datasheet?
• Safety factors should be added to the simulation results.
• Conclusions are too small and future developments must be added.
• Bullet points could help the readability of the conclusions.
• A table with maximum load and deformation at break of printed samples should be added. Reporting average and standard deviations.
• Why roof handrails were chosen for the study? Isn't their weight negligible compared to other car components?
• A deeper analysis of surface quality should be added, as additive manufacturing could not met the aesthetic standards of automotive sector.
• Additive manufacturing could stand the production volumes of a product like handrails? It should be addressed in the manuscript.
• An LCA should be performed considering the reduction in weight in a car life cycle and the AM production process. As well as a life cycle cost analysis.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A full grammar check is suggested. Some sentences can be joined as too repetitive, while several sentences should be shortened to help the readability of the paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer，

Thank you for your professionalism and patient guidance. I have already answered your question in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors   Include the possible results found in the conclusion; Include points from the finite element simulation in the introduction; Discuss the simulation results in more detail; Better correlate the deformations found. Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend the article for minor corrections.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your professional and patient guidance. We have responded to your question and recorded it in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have highlighted in yellow and given the necessary indications where necessary.
The work needs to be substantially improved. It has flaws both in terms of presentation and understanding by readers but also scientific gaps. The research, although correct in itself, does not make a connection with the actual materials and their characteristics given in tables 2 and 3.

Please note that if you do not answer all the questions and make the appropriate changes, I will be forced to reject the work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are certain phrases that they did not understand. I have pointed out those that I have identified.
Read again, carefully.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your professional and patient guidance. We have responded to your question and recorded it in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors answered all the questions.

Author Response

Sincerely thank you, reviewer, for your help.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You have enough editing errors:
- in some places there are no spaces before and after tables (Tables 1, 2,3 etc.), figures (figures 1,2, etc.), etc.
- at the end you wrote CRediT instead of Credit;
- also put in the finite element analyses the direction of the axes (you are talking about axes there) not only in figure 1.

Author Response

Sincerely thank you, reviewer, for your help.You can find the reply in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf