A Form-Finding Method for Branching Structures Based on Dynamic Relaxation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present a method to design branching structures based on dynamic relaxation and elements' clustering. In contrast to other methods, the one currently proposed leads to more evenly loaded branches and no members of the structure will be unloaded or barely loaded. Two examples are presented to show the applicability of the proposed method.
Although interesting, the explanation of the methodology and examples are unclear and prevent the reader from understanding key aspects of the new method and eventually reproduce the results.

The following suggestions point to some of the aspects that should be clarified and/or modified:

1) How are elements' clusters formed? This seems to be a critical step in the method and is not described in the manuscript.

2) It seems that the final structure identified by the algorithm critically depends on the selected elements' clusters. Can the authors comment on this aspect, especially in the case of irregular branching structures when element clustering is not obvious?

3) In section 3, the authors write "In the process of form finding, the compressive elastic modulus of the element is not considered, but only the tensile elastic modulus is considered." In Section 4, the authors similarly write: "In the two methods, only the tensile stiffness of the element is considered, and the compressive stiffness is not considered." What is the motivation for this decision?

4) The authors write: "The results obtained by the two methods are similar in overall shape, but the difference between the branching structures shown in Figs. 3c and d is obvious." This difference is not obvious at all. Can the authors comment on this difference?

5) In general the results need to be better commented and explained. In their current form it is not possible to appreciate the advantages of the newly proposed algorithm.

6) Are the plots in figure 5 switched? Otherwise, it seems that the currently proposed method leads to uneven forces in comparison to the traditional methodology.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I have already read your study very carefully. I have noted some corrections up to the attached pdf. Also, I would like to see the phrase form finding less often in the text. Finally, add to the manuscript conclusions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the authors for addressing my comments and suggestions. My only remaining suggestion regards checking for typos and English mistakes in the latest version of the manuscript. For example:

• Lines 262/263: there is a period mid-sentence
• Lines 269/274: capital letter after initial comma, and overall clarity of this paragraph.

These are just two examples. I would encourage the authors to carefully review their writing for clarity and proper English.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have done all the corrections.

The manuscript can be accepted in present form

The reviewer