Topology Optimization for Minimum Compliance with Material Volume and Buckling Constraints under Design-Dependent Loads

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors presented buckling-constrained topology optimization under design-dependent loading. The SIMP method is used. The authors present the details of the methods and formulations of all equations in a good way to follow. After considering and reading carefully, the reviewer finds this paper an interesting topic and there are some helpful conclusions. This paper can be further recommended for publication after the following revisions:

-      The contributions are not clear, and some conclusions do not devote the novelty of the present method compared with the existing methods. More comments should be discussed.

-      The authors should discuss the mode-switching problem in this paper?

-      The OC method is employed to update design variables, why the authors do not use the MMA method to deal with multiple constraints? More discussion should be given.

-      The reviewer also would like to see the consumption time to complete one optimization problem.

-      In Fig. 9 the comparison of two methods is shown SIMP and Binary structures approaches, the authors can consider more parameters that affect optimized designs, and the values of the Binary structures method should be displayed?

- It’s recommended to cited following papers: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-022-03170-8; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114296; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2020.102903;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a well- organized paper contains valuable materials, I have not any points and recommend its publication.

Author Response

Thank you!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewer appreciates that the authors have taken into consideration all the aspects indicated for correction. From a scientific point of view, there is nothing more to add.

It is suggested to carry out a last review of the English language and style to detect some minor issues.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revision has been improved.