Modelling and Simulation of Traditional Craft Actions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work is very interesting and should be published by the journal.

However, a number of questions remain, particularly concerning the form of the paper and the quality of the figures.

I think the article is too much, but I'll leave it to the journal's editor to decide.

In all the proposed figures, the text included inside is not at all legible. Unless it is important to display it, it could be removed. Also, the colour codes on all the figures are illegible. Please indicate whether this problem can be resolved

Author Response

All changes made in the revised manuscript are highlighted in yellow.

Comment: This work is very interesting and should be published by the journal.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the constructive criticism.

Comment: However, a number of questions remain, particularly concerning the form of the paper and the quality of the figures.

Response:

We acknowledge the problem of figure quality. In our MS Word source file the figures are in high resolution, but the resultant PDF size exceeded the file-size journal’s limit and we had to compress it, impacting on figure quality.

After communicating with the editor we are providing the figures, in their original high-quality as supplementary files. We also took additional steps, as reported in the figure-specific comment below.

Comment: I think the article is too much, but I'll leave it to the journal's editor to decide.

Response: We have reduced and condensed the number of visual demonstrations, without omitting any critical information that would restrict the readers from reproducing this work.

Comment: In all the proposed figures, the text included inside is not at all legible. Unless it is important to display it, it could be removed. Also, the colour codes on all the figures are illegible. Please indicate whether this problem can be resolved.

Response: We increased the resolution of the figures and deleted the text in them which were printouts of the simulator and did not provide any crucial information for their understanding. We also increased the magnification so that figures contain less white space and focus on the displayed scene.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article focus of modelling the mechanical and apparent components of crafting actions. However, it is not clear if the authors implemented the models or provide a review of existing ones already implemented in FEM softwares.

Line 66: “the models are implemented for indicative actions from each category to illustrate the suitability of the proposed approach” Please be clear and indicate the “approach” implemented.

Line 818 and Line 68: directions for future work are not clearly described. Align future directions with the presented contribution provided to the scientific community.

Table 2:

What is the difference between Young’s modulus and Elasticity modulus? Young Modulus is not unitless.

Select adequate unit of measurements, either percentage or unitless.

Ductility under compression (doi.org/10.3390/met10111503) is not considered?

Delete all brackets with codes of definitions in voceb.getty…. []

It is not clear if orthotropic damage models are included in Ref 57 such as current accurate SC11–TNT  (s00466-023-02362-3; ma12193072).

Provide more references including simulations and validation of models (S1758825121500733; cryst12050720) applied to fibrous materials.

Jonson Cook model and other damage models requires the model constant calibrations using Combined Experimental and Numerical Calibration Approaches (erospace11040285, j.jmrt.2023.08.255). Error for plasticity and for fracture predictions should be discussed for crafting modeling applications.

In line 469, MatWeb should be cited and referenced (https://www.matweb.com/).

Titles of all figures should be more descriptive.

Text in Figures should be legible and text not providing valuable information for the manuscript should be deleted.

Main findings are not stated in Conclusion section.

What is the title of Section 5.2? Line 612. Rearrange titles of all Sections.

Figure 8, condition 1, 2 and 3 should be labeled in Figure 8 as letter a), b) and c) to clearly identified and cite each case in the text.

What are Serious Games? This subtitle is unclear.  

Last paragraph of introduction section should be improved and extended for more specific focus and clarity.

Material models of simulations presented are too generals. Provide a summary table with all material models, with sufficient references and the name of the mathematical or constitutive models, include also at least two references for each model showing applications and validations to clearly observ if the models are newly implemented, newly created or proposed or available in commercial softwares.

Figure 1 to 24. Which software was used?

Finite element simulations of vibrations are not considered in the classification? There is much literature that should be discussed app132112073 s00107-021-01705-2.

The manuscript should undergo extensive revision before being accepted for publication.

Clearly identify the scope of the study, limitations and contribution.

Align abstract with conclusions and scope defined in the introduction section. Provide research gap that justify the proposed approach.   

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the constructive criticism. All changes made in the revised manuscript are highlighted in yellow.

Comment: This article focuses on modelling the mechanical and apparent components of crafting actions. However, it is not clear if the authors implemented the models or provide a review of existing ones already implemented in FEM softwares.

Response: We now state in the first paragraph of Section 5 that: All simulations were formulated using Simulia Abaqus, a software suite for Finite Element analysis and simulation, which provides implementations of all the aforementioned (in Section 3 and Section 4) physical models and properties.

Comment: Line 66: “the models are implemented for indicative actions from each category to illustrate the suitability of the proposed approach” Please be clear and indicate the “approach” implemented.

Response: The proposed approach is now more clearly defined in the introduction in paragraph 4.

Comment: Line 818 and Line 68: directions for future work are not clearly described. Align future directions with the presented contribution provided to the scientific community.

Response:

We revised lines 818 and 62, with the revised description below, to more clearly connect the proposed future work with the contributions our research makes to the scientific community:

Line 818: Future research will focus on understanding the role of sensory feedback—such as visual, audio, and haptic stimuli—into practitioner judgements and the modelling of the corresponding mental actions. Additionally, finding ways to integrate expert knowledge will refine our models, capturing the aspects of skill and dexterity and improving the effectiveness of simulation-based learning. Moreover, we warrant ways to simplify the computational load by utilising parallel computation methods, such as [26], to provide more complex and more realistic simulations. Finally, the rendering of simulations with photorealistic realism would increase the aesthetics of interactive demonstrations and make interactive applications more appealing to craft apprentices.

Line 68: Conclusions and future directions, including the integration of sensory feedback, cognitive processes, and expert knowledge into our simulation models, are outlined in Section 6.

Comment: Table 2: What is the difference between Young’s modulus and Elasticity modulus?

Response:

The following addition is included in the revised manuscript, in Section 3.4:

Young's modulus measures how stiff a material is by comparing the amount of force applied to an object with how much it deforms. It's used for materials under stretching or compressing and is measured in Pascals (Pa). Elastic modulus is a broader term that includes Young's modulus along with other measures like the shear modulus (resistance to twisting) and bulk modulus (resistance to volume changes).

Comment: Young Modulus is not unitless.

Response: Young's modulus units were corrected to Pascals (Pa) in Section 3.4, in Table 2.

Comment: Select adequate units of measurements, either percentage or unitless.

Response: We selected unitless and updated Table 4.

Comment: Ductility under compression (doi.org/10.3390/met10111503) is not considered?

Response: In Section 3.4, we expanded our discussion to include ductility under compressive loading. The update includes the recommended reference and another one: [ISBN 9781118717189]. The update can be found in the last paragraph before Table 2.

Comment: Delete all brackets with codes of definitions in voceb.getty…. []

Response: The association of mechanical models of actions with their semantic definition is part of the proposed work. The semantic definitions follow hierarchies that are expressed with words similarities and hierarchies also found in the mechanical models. We think that this association with an internationally established standard of semantic annotation, such as the Getty Arts and Architecture Thesaurus (GAAT), is worth mentioning because it contributes to the future identification and improvement of this work, by specialising for finer subclasses of the already identified ones. To follow this recommendation, we removed all brackets and definition codes from the main text and provided the aforementioned information in Appendix A. We reference this appendix in Section 4.1.

Comment: It is not clear if orthotropic damage models are included in Ref 57 such as current accurate SC11–TNT  (s00466-023-02362-3; ma12193072).

Response: Indeed, that reference does not explicitly detail the SC11–TNT model, because SC11–TNT is not an orthotropic damage model. This work does not cover all mechanical models existing but prioritises those relevant to traditional crafts. The SC11–TNT model [s00466-023-02362-3], primarily associated with Ti alloys, was out of our initial scope, as Ti was isolated in 1910 and has not been traditionally used in crafts. Nevertheless, as [ma12193072] shows, despite being associated with Ti alloys, SC11–TNT is used for Ti alloys that contain Zn and Cu, which are traditional materials. Thus, SC11–TNT could be used for ductile materials, with appropriate modifications and calibration. The recommended references were included and the relevant text was updated in Section 4.1.4, lines 465-474.

Comment: Provide more references including simulations and validation of models (S1758825121500733; cryst12050720) applied to fibrous materials.

Response: The recommended references were included in Section 4.1.4 pertinent to the orthotropic model.

Comment: Johnson Cook model and other damage models require the model constant calibrations using Combined Experimental and Numerical Calibration Approaches (aerospace11040285, j.jmrt.2023.08.255). Error for plasticity and for fracture predictions should be discussed for crafting modeling applications.

Response: We inserted a paragraph including these two publications and discussing the calibration of damage models in Section 4.1.4, lines 475-481.

Comment: In line 469, MatWeb should be cited and referenced (https://www.matweb.com/).

Response: Matweb is now cited and referenced in the introduction of Section 4.2.

Comment: Titles of all figures should be more descriptive.

Response: The titles of all figures were rewritten to be more descriptive.

Comment: Text in Figures should be legible and text not providing valuable information for the manuscript should be deleted.

Response: The text in the figures did not provide information for the manuscript and we re-rendered them excluding it. Also, the figures are now in higher resolution and magnification.

Comment: Main findings are not stated in Conclusion section.

Response: The main findings are now stated in the Conclusion section in paragraph 3.

Comment: What is the title of Section 5.2? Line 612. Rearrange titles of all Sections.

Response: The titles of subsections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5 have been rearranged to match and be the same with those of sub-subsections 4.1. Also, enumeration errors in subsection of Section 5 were fixed.

Comment: Figure 8, condition 1, 2 and 3 should be labelled in Figure 8 as letter a), b) and c) to clearly identified and cite each case in the text.

Response: The figure caption was re-written to clarify between the three conditions, using the “left”, “middle”, and “right” identification for the three images in the figure.

Comment: What are Serious Games? This subtitle is unclear.

Response: Not defining this term was an omission from our side, because the term is widely used in Computer Science, but it is not necessarily known across other disciplines. We now provide a definition and reference in the first sentence of Section 2.4.

Comment: Last paragraph of the introduction section should be improved and extended for more specific focus and clarity.

Response: The introduction was re-written, including its last paragraph which was improved and extended for more specific focus and clarity.

Comment: Material models of simulations presented are too general. Provide a summary table with all material models, with sufficient references and the name of the mathematical or constitutive models, include also at least two references for each model showing applications and validations to clearly observe if the models are newly implemented, newly created or proposed or available in commercial softwares.

Response: We provided a detailed summary table that includes all the material models employed in our study in new Table 4, Section 4.1.4. We also clarify that all model implementations were available in commercial software. Table 4 summarizes the damage models considered in this work and includes additional references for the listed models. All model implementations were provided by the Simulia Abaqus software.

Comment: Figure 1 to 24. Which software was used?

Response:

In the revised manuscript, we have added the following sentence at the beginning of Section 5:

All simulations were formulated using Simulia Abaqus [100], a software suite for Finite Element analysis and simulation, which provides implementations of all the aforementioned physical models (in Section 3 and Section 4).

Comment: Finite element simulations of vibrations are not considered in the classification? There is much literature that should be discussed app132112073 s00107-021-01705-2.

Response:

Indeed, vibration analysis plays a crucial role in understanding the dynamic behaviour of structures and materials. In traditional crafts, vibration analysis is based mainly on the perception of the practitioner. For example, in the making of musical instruments, vibrations are crucial in evaluating the sound quality of an instrument by ensuring that the materials (wood, strings) resonate correctly. Moreover, as industrial methods are increasingly used in the making of traditional products, one can conceive the relevance of the recommended citations. We, therefore, provide a literature review, including the recommended citations, in a new subsection, Section 2.7, where we discuss the aforementioned topics and include references [app132112073] and [s00107-021-01705-2].

In addition, we added a last paragraph in the conclusions on this topic and the avenues we see as future work, relating to vibration analysis.

Comment: The manuscript should undergo extensive revision before being accepted for publication.

Response: The manuscript underwent extensive revision, on the identified and some additional topics to improve its quality.

Comment: Clearly identify the scope of the study, limitations and contribution.

Response: The contribution, scope, and limitations of this study are now more clearly identified in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7, of the introduction, respectively.

Comment: Align abstract with conclusions and scope defined in the introduction section.

Response: The abstract has been rewritten to be better aligned with the conclusions and the scope defined in the introduction section.

Comment: Provide research gap that justify the proposed approach.  

Response: The research gap is now provided in the introduction in paragraph 3.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, the specific combination of proposed elements—creating a taxonomy of fundamental craft actions, modeling them using FEM, and integrating these simulations into 3D visualizations and game engines for training applications—represents a novel interdisciplinary approach. This integration to specifically support craft training might not have been extensively addressed before, making it a relatively new and innovative topic within the intersection of these fields. Some significant changes should be made to the article before processing it for publishing. The figures are of very poor quality. The article also has too many pages. It could be a good idea, if possible to reduce number of examples.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment: Dear Authors, the specific combination of proposed elements—creating a taxonomy of fundamental craft actions, modeling them using FEM, and integrating these simulations into 3D visualizations and game engines for training applications—represents a novel interdisciplinary approach. This integration to specifically support craft training might not have been extensively addressed before, making it a relatively new and innovative topic within the intersection of these fields. Some significant changes should be made to the article before processing it for publishing.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the constructive criticism. All changes made in the revised manuscript are highlighted in yellow.

Comment: The figures are of very poor quality.

Response:

We acknowledge the problem of figure quality. In our MS Word source file the figures are in high resolution, but the resultant PDF size exceeded the file-size journal’s limit and we had to compress it, impacting on figure quality.

After communicating with the editor we are providing the figures, in their original high-quality as supplementary files. We also (1) deleted the text in them which were printouts of the simulator and did not provide any crucial information for their understanding and (2) increased the magnification so that figures contain less white space and focus on the displayed scene.

Comment: The article also has too many pages. It could be a good idea, if possible to reduce the number of examples.

Response:

We have reduced the number of visual demonstrations, without omitting any critical information that would restrict the readers from reproducing this work.

We also deleted subsection 5.5, which contained the combination of already presented simulations.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have substantially improved the manuscript and it can be accepted for publication. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please correct some typos and minor grammar errors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

The article can now be accepted for publication.