Shape Optimisation of Assembled Plate Structures with the Boundary Element Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 figures 3 and 11 it is not clear why BEM and FEM convergent values differs.

 

In order to validate the proposed methodology, more optimization examples must be presented.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attached document 'Author's Reply to the Review Report.pdf'.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I think there is no evidence to support this statement "...  the newly developed IDM is more accurate, robust, and efficient when compared to alternative methodologies ...". In order to support this, you need to compare the results predicted by the methods described with the analytical results or experimental observations. You also need to record the computational time and memory requirement for each method in calculating the same problem with the same mesh. You also need to demonstrate the cases that are not easy to achieve by other methods to demonstrate the robustness.

Author Response

Please see the attached document 'Author's Reply to the Review Report.pdf'.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Review of the paper « Shape Optimization of Assembled Plate Structures with the Boundary Element Method»

Llewellyn Morse, Vincenzo Mallardo, Zahra Sharif-Khodaei, Ferri M.H. Aliabadi

 

The presented article is written briefly for a very narrow circle of specialists and is not intended for publication in a journal.

The BEM equations for the plate membrane and for bending and shear (equations (1), (2)) is introduced in Section 2.1. After that, the authors write out an analog of the matching conditions of solutions on the interface (equalities (5)-(13)). After that, the authors write out an analog of the matching conditions on the interface (equalities (5)-(13)). Notation is not introduced in either the first or the second case. It is impossible to understand the material even for a specialist in mechanics, the theory of boundary value problems and computational mathematics.

I suggest that the authors accurately write out the mathematical model in the differential form of a prefabricated plastic structure, taking into account the matching conditions of solutions, by introducing all the notation. Then the BEM equations for the differential model.

I do not recommend publishing the article in its present form.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached document 'Author's Reply to the Review Report.pdf'.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this manuscript, the authors presented for conducting sensitivity analyses of assembled plate structures using the Boundary Element Method. The exact implicit derivatives of the BEM formulations for assembled plate structures are investigated. This work’s topic is interesting, and the presentation of the mathematical model is clear. However, I do have some suggestions/comments that could improve this paper as follows:

1.   The abstract should be improved. For instance, the main novelty of this work should be clarified.

2.      In equations 1-2, the parameters (T,U,C,q,u,t,w,…) are not defined.

3.   The numerical integration is missing in detail i.e., the number of Gauss points generated in elements.

4.       Discuss the imposition of boundary conditions.

 

5.       To the extent of this research, are there any recommendations for future work?

Author Response

Please see the attached document 'Author's Reply to the Review Report.pdf'.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors presents a novel methodology for performing sensitivity analyses of assembled plate structures structures using the Boundary Element Method (BEM). The main novelty of this work is that the exact implicit derivatives of the BEM formulations for assembled plate structures, enabling sensitivity analyses to be conducted for more complex and realistic structures in a more accurate manner than previous approaches. The title and abstract are appropriate for the content of the text. Furthermore, the article is well constructed and analysis was well performed.

Reviewer 2 Report

It is fine for publication now.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article may be published in a revised version.