Phase Plane Trajectory Planning for Double Pendulum Crane Anti-Sway Control

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper suggests an input shaping double pendulum anti-sway control method, employing phase plane trajectory planning, to mitigate load swing. By analyzing the phase plane swing angle and the system's physical limitations, the method determines the optimal acceleration switching time and amplitude. This approach effectively confines the trolley's displacement and speed, as well as the hook and load swing angles, within predefined constraints, thereby enhancing stability and precision.

The paper is nice and I enjoyed reading it; however, I have several concerns:

1. There is no related work section and the survey of related work is included in the introduction. I would encourage the author to split out the related work section.
2. The presented references deviate from established and accepted scientific writing methodologies. The absence of a uniform citation style, whether it be APA, MLA, Chicago, or another recognized format, undermines the rigor of the research and suggests a lack of attention to detail.
3. Figure 1 was taken from Zhao Y, Wu X, Zhang Y, Ke L. Lyapunov, “approach for the control of overhead crane systems with double-pendulum dynamics and uncertain disturbances”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I. 2024, Vol. 238(6), pp. 1002-1012. This should be explicitly stated.
4. Equations 1-9 were written one after the other with almost no explanation. It is difficult to understand them that way.
5. The claim that Equation 13 simplifies Equation 12 is unsubstantiated; the authors fail to provide any rationale, rendering the relationship incomprehensible.
6. In Figure 16, what is the value of Theta_1,2max?
7. In Figure 2, could the authors clarify the units used for the Y-axis?
8. The data in Table 1 would be much more accessible if presented in a graph. A graphical format would allow for a more immediate and clear understanding of the comparisons.
9. The authors write in line 343 “The position of the trolley is measured by a laser ranger” The authors do not refer to the combination of different apparatus besides the laser as was suggested in Y. Wiseman, "Ancillary Ultrasonic Rangefinder for Autonomous Vehicles", International Journal of Security and its Applications, Vol. 12(5), pp. 49-58, 2018. Available online at: https://u.cs.biu.ac.il/~wisemay/ijsia2018.pdf ‏ I would encourage the authors to cite this paper and add a paragraph about a combination of different methods to measure the range at least as future work.
10. It would be helpful to include a discussion on the potential shortcomings and avenues for enhancing the proposed model.

 

Author Response

请参阅附件

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is related to the modelling and an anti-sway control system design for a double-pendulum girder crane.
The title and abstract are clear. The keywords are adequate. However, the manuscript text needs some improvements to be considered for publication. Below, you can find my questions and suggestions that should be addressed:

1. References: is the referencing style adequate and preferred by the journal? You use the first author's name followed by a reference number, which is not clear, in my opinion.
2. The contribution: the considered problem is well-known and widely described in the literature. A precise specification of the novelty and innovativeness of the proposed solution is required.
3. Simplification, lines 143-144: "The load swing angle of a crane during actual operation is generally within plus or
minus 10 degrees 20.". What does "20" mean?
4. You consider a double pendulum system, while in lines 149-150, you reduce it to a single pendulum system, assuming that the difference between the two angles is small (θ1 ≈ θ2). Could you comment on this?
5. Eq.17: according to Fig.2, the second period should be t2≤t<t3 instead of t1≤t<t2
6. Types and accuracies of the measuring devices used at the test bench should be provided.
7. Masses of the hook and the load used in the experiment should be provided. Also, comparative studies with different masses would be interesting.
8. The conclusions should provide a clear explanation of the proposed solution's requirements and limitations.

Regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Formatting Issue (Lines 33-34): (Error! Reference 33 source not found..)
2. Reference Number Formatting: The reference numbers need to be formatted correctly in the manuscript. Ensure they follow the required citation style and maintain uniformity throughout the text.
3. How does the proposed method perform under varying the external disturbances, such as wind forces or sudden load changes?
4. Are there other advanced control techniques that could be used for further benchmarking?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all my concerns. The revised manuscript is ready for publication.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
You addressed most of my suggestions. I recommend accepting the revised manuscript.