Structural Analysis and Application of Non-Standard Components Based on Genetic Algorithm
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1, Please ask a colleague who is native English speaker to review your manuscript for clarity and obvious common grammar mistakes.
2, Please explain why you can reduce the weight and perform the simulation on the simplified structure without considering the hoes, bolts and other components in section 5.1, and the follow-up question is that whether the frequency is affected or not by your simplification in the simulation.
Author Response
Dear expert.
Please refer to my revised article in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments
The manuscript is very sloppy. The equations are very poor quality, there are no descriptions of the all used symbols. Authors should add more details about GA settings.
Detail comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear expert.
Please refer to my revised article in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper improves a lot, and can be published in the current format.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper proposes a Structural Analysis and Application of Non-standard Components Based on Genetic Algorithm. The optimized data’s are obtained using a Genetic algorithm and simulated with the help of ANSYS workbench. In the proposed work author(s) claimed that first six order modal values lies between 68-125 HZ. Please avoid data value as given in the abstract part [78; 40; 20; 70; 1; 61; 52; 22.5; 112; 92]
In the introduction, the authors introduce the need for automated design to reduce the manpower cost and to improve production efficiency. While this argument is certainly valid, though the introduction is very general and I love to see more in-depth discussion in this phase. More specifically, similar papers on extending methodologies have been published in the past without explicit reference to them, I see no future of the proposed work.
In the Framework design or in general methodology part , my observation is if the author(s) has not proposed any new physical system then the discussion given is meaningless. General theories are not so important as it is already established rather I would like to see some algorithm in this regard since the journal has been Algorithm based.
Analysis of Optimal Mathematical Model as discussed in the section 4 is encouraging as author(s) also considered constraints into their analysis.
The Analysis of the result is bellow journal standard. Authors must site or give sufficient reason on what basis they have chosen the parameter for their work. The Authors claimed that they have achieved target using 6 sets, but what about more have they tried otherwise it is meaningless. The Authors claimed that they have used six algorithms to achieve their output, but in practice it is missing completely.
Quality of figure 7 and 8 is very poor as well as authors fail to provide through those pictures about their claim that the resonance value should be between 68-125 HZ.
One certain concern with this paper is the quality of English language used. There are a few spelling mistakes.
Reviewer 2 Report
1, the total reference number is 26, and in the abstract part, there are reference number 52, 92, 61 and 112, please check all your reference to make sure they are correct.
2, line space is not consistent in this paper, please make sure the line space does not change even you enter the equations. Please rewrite your paper to make it more readable.
3, In your simulation part, you reduce the weight of the structure, and did not consider the screws and holes, which is not correct. We know that resonance is affected by the mass of the system, and geometry can also affect the result of simulations. Please conduct ANSYS simulation again by considering the geometry and original weight.
