Topology Optimization with Matlab: Geometrically Non-Linear Optimum Solid Structures at Random Force Strengths
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this research, the authors developed a 3D topology optimization method with geometric nonlinear for designing the optimal geometry of a silicon anode exposed to a random contact. The feasibility of this method is verified by several numerical examples and some surprising structures are obtained. Due to ambiguities in formulas and numerical examples, the reviewer suggested major revisions. Please consider the following comments and questions regarding the revision.
1. The authors should provide a table of symbols for mathematical operations because some formulas are confusing, such as Eq. (3) and sigma=C varepsilon.
2. Can the authors provide the specific expression for the 2nd Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor S derived from the strain energy density function?
3. What is the definition of K in the section 4.2. If it's a stiffness matrix, which step does it correspond to?
4. The Density filtering and the sensitivity filtering of the SIMP method are presented in this work, but the author does not show which one is used in numerical examples.
5. It is well known that topology optimization of continuum structure considering geometric nonlinearity based on finite element method will encounter the problem of analytic convergence caused by low-density elements. How the authors solve the problem seems not to be stated in the paper.
6. The authors should give the termination criterion of topology optimization.
7. Some setting parameters in numerical examples could be clearer, such as filter radius and material parameters, and the optimized iteration history information is also missing.
8. The introduction should be improved because the description of the work on topology optimization considering geometric nonlinearity is not comprehensive enough. For instance, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 19 (2000) 93–104; Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 276 (2014) 453–472; Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 344 (2019) 798–818.
9. The island phenomenon exists in the result of example 3.3. What are the reasons for this? Can authors give some solutions?
10. The number of elements in numerical examples is relatively sparse. If the computational resources allow authors to try to add more elements, it is possible to get more surprising structures.
11. Can authors briefly explain how such an optimized structure described by elements can be converted into a geometric model?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled “Topology Optimization with Matlab: Geometrically Non-Linear Optimum Solid Structures At Random Force Strengths” investigated large-strain topology optimization focusing on a probability density formulation. The whole is logically structured, and the writing is acceptable. The attractive 3D cases were presented in this work. The biggest contribution of this work is the 3D open acess matlab code, which is very important in the topology optimization field as the researchers can use the code for further studies. The Reviewer recommends the publication after addressing the following questions properly.
1. The address information may be not complete. Please double-check it.
2. In Introduction, please also mention some newly developed element-based algorithms such as ETO, SEMDOT and FPTO. This will show that the authors know the new research in this field. The reviewer believes that the method proposed in this work can also be used in ETO, SEMDOT and FPTO. The authors just took SIMP and BESO as the examples.
3. Please also provide a conclusion section, which will help the readers know what you obtained in this research quickly.
4.The Matlab code should be put in Appendix. Please re-organize it.
5. The writing is acceptable but still can be further polished.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Substantial revison has been made.
