Smart Design: Application of an Automatic New Methodology for the Energy Assessment and Redesign of Hybrid Electric Vehicle Mechanical Components
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is interesting to the readers and a well-written paper by the authors. I accept this paper.
Author Response
Response to the Reviewers’ Comments
Manuscript ID: vehicles-1712290
Title: Smart Design: application of an Automatic New Methodology for the Energy Assessment and Redesign of Hybrid Electric Vehicle Mechanical Component
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
on behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank for your comments concerning the manuscript entitled “Smart Design: application of an Automatic New Methodology for the Energy Assessment and Redesign of Hybrid Electric Vehicle Mechanical Component” (ID: vehicles-1712290). Those comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper.
The authors have tried their best to apply all comments in the revised article.
During the revision process, improving of the English language, of the figures and of the nomenclature have been carried out. Some ambiguous points have been clarified allowing the paper to be easier to understand.
After the revision process, the authors think that the paper has been substantially improved, thanks to your valuable suggestions and observations.
We are also apologize for the delay on the revision process and we are grateful to the Editor and all Reviewers for the extension of the review time.
Please check the attached revised version, which we would like to resubmit for possible publication on Vehicles.
Best regards,
Fabio Alberti
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper contains several aspects which is called multidisciplinary methodology by the authors. However, none of them present significant academic novelty. This is paper only presents several existing software model simulation results but not the authors contribution.
In section 2, the authors use the model parameters from an existing model in the ADVISOR. Then build the vehicle models in MATLAB and AVL. The main work is simply drag and connect some blocks. No powertrain dynamic analysis, vehicle energy management strategy and gear shifting strategy are presented in the paper, which are important in powertrain research.
In section 2.5 and 2.6, the authors again use Adams and ANSYS to build the suspension and half shaft model. No parameters are given. Besides, these parts make the paper not focused. You have got energy consumption, emission, and drive shaft strength in the paper. They are not relevant to each other; you need to focus.
Lastly, many spelling and grammar errors are found in this paper. Examples are:
Line 27: tomprove
Line 74: d. Through this model, is possible to…
Line 116: ffeed-forward forward approach
Line 120: position, is possible to
Line 149: Vehicle speed to be matched with
Author Response
Response to the Reviewers’ Comments
Manuscript ID: vehicles-1712290
Title: Smart Design: application of an Automatic New Methodology for the Energy Assessment and Redesign of Hybrid Electric Vehicle Mechanical Component
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
on behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank for your comments concerning the manuscript entitled “Smart Design: application of an Automatic New Methodology for the Energy Assessment and Redesign of Hybrid Electric Vehicle Mechanical Component” (ID: vehicles-1712290). Those comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper.
The authors have tried their best to apply all comments in the revised article.
During the revision process, improving of the English language, of the figures and of the nomenclature have been carried out. Some ambiguous points have been clarified allowing the paper to be easier to understand.
After the revision process, the authors think that the paper has been substantially improved, thanks to your valuable suggestions and observations.
We are also apologize for the delay on the revision process and we are grateful to the Editor and all Reviewers for the extension of the review time.
Please check the attached revised version, which we would like to resubmit for possible publication on Vehicles.
Best regards,
Fabio Alberti
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The following observations may be taken into account:
- There are some grammatical errors, and typos in the context as can be seen in lines 27, 74, 116, 129, 147, 226 (should be subject to), etc.
- In figure 1, blocks 3 and 4 should be corrected (suspension instead of supension, Half-Shaft instead of Halfshaft)
- In the text, the word 'it' is omitted in many sentences. In line 74, it is possible instead of - is possible. Similar observations are seen in lines 120, 197, 200, 225, etc.
- Once FEA is abbreviated for Finite Element Analysis, no need to use the full form recurrently.
- In the caption of figure 3, the name of the instrument should be mentioned.
- After figures 4, 10, 11, 12, and 13, the authors must narrate their findings. Though a very short description is seen in the Discussion section.
- To find the research gap precisely, the Introduction section may be improved.
- The validification of the simulated works should be precisely outlined.
Author Response
Response to the Reviewers’ Comments
Manuscript ID: vehicles-1712290
Title: Smart Design: application of an Automatic New Methodology for the Energy Assessment and Redesign of Hybrid Electric Vehicle Mechanical Component
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
on behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank for your comments concerning the manuscript entitled “Smart Design: application of an Automatic New Methodology for the Energy Assessment and Redesign of Hybrid Electric Vehicle Mechanical Component” (ID: vehicles-1712290). Those comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper.
The authors have tried their best to apply all comments in the revised article.
During the revision process, improving of the English language, of the figures and of the nomenclature have been carried out. Some ambiguous points have been clarified allowing the paper to be easier to understand.
After the revision process, the authors think that the paper has been substantially improved, thanks to your valuable suggestions and observations.
We are also apologize for the delay on the revision process and we are grateful to the Editor and all Reviewers for the extension of the review time.
Please check the attached revised version, which we would like to resubmit for possible publication on Vehicles.
Best regards,
Fabio Alberti
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised paper has tackled my concerns and I'm happy with accepting it for publication.
