Optimization Design and Injury Analysis of Driver’s Restraint System in Sedan Small Offset Collision
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
A very well-written paper.
My comments are:
1) please use the injury terminology according to the standard medical terminology or according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) by AAAM.
Example: chest fracture, left ear fracture, traumatic wet lung, concave fracture of left eyebrow arch bone
2) Please ensure the format is according to the journal's guidelines.
The last part of the manuscript (before references), please ensure all the information is included.
3) Please make sure the References are written according to the journal's guidelines.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presented is quite interesting and the way the impact is evaluated considers real collision models and reproduces them numerically to establish the main variables and injury parameters that will optimize a restraint system through genetic algorithms.
There are many areas of improvement for this paper, which are listed below:
1. The Introduction section can be more concrete. For example, the authors should consider highlighting the use of genetic algorithms to optimize a restrain system.
2. The main area of improvement for the current presentation is to demonstrate convergence between the numerical model (Dodge Neon) and collisions data (Toyota sedan ). Are the Mass, Inertia, Length, Width, and Height similar? Why are you comparing a real crash deformation with a different vehicle?. If the Toyota numerical model is free!
3. The recollected data accidents section is hard to follow. It is unclear about the database used and how to interpret the results in the figures and tables. The authors should consider adding more descriptions. (Figure 1 is not clear, it is blurred). The author works on the comparison between numerical model simulation and real vehicle recorded collision. Again, the graphic is blurred and not described.
4. The comparison of actual vehicle collision tests with vehicle collision simulations is required to establish the energy variation. Could you mind adding a graphic of the following information (Total energy, kinetic energy, internal energy, and hourglass energy)
5. Many terms are not clearly defined formally (THUMS, RMSE, to mention a few). The authors should consider adding a separate section where those terms are used in describing the details of the proposed simulations.
6. The 25 samples points are large enough to optimize the driver's retention system. However, the limitations and aspects are not mentioned in this research.
7. Table 5 is not addressed in the paper.
8. The conclusion needs to summarize the significant findings of methods used with future proposals.
9 Finally, Could you mind explain the difference between the following article, “Effects of sedan wheelbase size on left rear-seat occupant injury risk in small offset crashes” and the new research proposed to publish in the journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Once the manuscript has been thoroughly analyzed and seeing that the authors have profoundly improved it according to the reviewers' suggestions, from my point of view, the manuscript can be definitively published
¡¡¡ Congratulations ¡¡¡
