Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Yunhe Zhang 1,
  • Faping Zhang 1,* and
  • Haixun Wang 3
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Sergey Staroletov Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper present a prediction method of clearance vibration for intelligent vehicles motion control. No doubt it is an interesting research topic to investigate the critical influence factors on the control accuracy from the mechanical structure. However, there exists some problems in the paper which are needed to be explained in detail.
(1)  In the Introduction section, the literature review mainly focus on the motion control methods. Research related to the proposed research topic also should be investigated.
(2) The authors argued that the clearance vibration has important influence on control accuracy, and the paper present a model to predict the clearance vibration. However, the paper didn't give any quantitative analysis on how such factor can influence the control accuracy. 
(3) In the Results and discussion section, the experiments and discussions about influence of  clearance vibration on motion control accuracy also should be present.
(4) Some citation errors of references in the manuscript should be fixed.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

       Thank you very much for reviewing the article and providing the important comments. The article has been modified in accordance with the suggestions. Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study is based on a good phisical-mathematical foundation  but I would recommend to reject the publication from Sustainability, do some revision and may be resend to a journal with an engineering profile since the study is not related directly to digital human-centric environment.

The title is not appropriate to the research that has been actually done in the paper.  The authors state that "this paper discusses vibrations generated by driveshaft clearance between the transmission shaft and the sleeve", what should be clearly stated in the title and abstract. Instead of this, the authors in the title and introduction describe a more general method (which is the long-term goal of the authors as it was said in the end of the conclusion), so the potential reader the would be disappointed. I suppose to make a complete research and apply the method to actually predict a vibration role and finally implement and evaluate a control system. After it, the role for sustainability could have been discussed.

Some minor remarks:

  • a lot of missed references [Error! Reference source not found.].
  • in the introduction, a poor selection of international citations.
  • the overall view on transmission shaft operation is not discussed and the vibration problem is not clearly stated in the paper.
  • <Go to ISI>://WOS:000229127100003 in the literature. - have not seen such a construct anywhere else. 
  • Fig.7 should construct a diagrammic architectural view on a test bench in addition to the photo. 
  • Fig.3 (the same for 4 and 5): there is no analysis of the influence of different SNR values on the results, it may be better to show dependences for a smooth change in SNR on one graph.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

       Thank you very much for reviewing the article and providing the important comments. The article has been modified in accordance with the suggestions. Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

the paper entitled 'Prediction of Clearance Vibration for Intelligent Vehicles Motion Control' presents a good contribution to the field and it looks interesting for readers.

i have only few minro remarks about this version.

minor erros:

-page 2 line 82: (reference 27 called twice)

-equation 8, make reader confused

-page 4  line 154 (b or B?)

-page 11, line 365: Figure (10) and (e)????

-authors have used 9 sensors, but they show results for 8, as it is in fiure 10 and 11

-page 8, line 274. i can't understand how the authors have used the (a) parameters in the tests?

-figure 3, 4 and 5, needs to have the units in the axis.

-some errors appear when inserting references

-equation 12 must be replaced by the result of equation 10

-verify equation 8, if the beta is the same with equation 7

-also verify equation 2 if L=0 or L=l

 please get a new look on all equations

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

       Thank you very much for reviewing the article and providing the important comments. The article has been modified in accordance with the suggestions. Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The language can be polished carefully.

Author Response

Dear Rewiewer,

The language of the paper has been revised. Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the paper

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has been improved a lot, however, it still lacks of several important things: 

1. The references: the authors wrote one sentence for each cited work in average. In good papers significant works should be not even be cited but evaluated (with props and cons), and related mathematics should be presented from such papers and discussed in details with relations to the paper goals. 

2. Still no relation to the journal objectives (sustainability). The authors should discuss in details how the result have some relation to  sustainability/humanity - in the abstract/introduction/conclusion. 

3. Have not discussed how to move from the test bench to a real device. How to test/measure on a real device? What are limitations of the stand? 

4. It is better to show full workflow of the research school of the authors and discuss which part the current paper does it occupy in the workflow and what will be further steps/goals. 

5. Nowadays it is better to put all the test data in .csv files into an open-source repository (github/zenodo) and make a link to it from the paper in order to close questions about the reproducibility of the restuls. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,  

The paper has been revised. Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the paper. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The text has been improved a lot, so it is almost fine.

I see a lot of missed links again "[Error! Reference source not found.]"

Figure numbers are not correct sometimes (see Figure 113). 

Still have not found a link to data (but authors stated "Response 5: The test data has been uploaded."). 

In the references about sliding control, the authors missed mentions to the sliding control guru V. Utkin (I remember I read some works in the past by V Utkin, H Brandtstadter). 

The English usage should be a bit rechecked: for example I do not use an article near general things like stability but authors do. 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

       Thank you very much for reviewing the article and providing constructive comments. The article has been modified in accordance with your suggestions. Following are the modified contents:

 

Point 1：I see a lot of missed links again "[Error! Reference source not found.]"

Response 1:  References have been reedited

 

Point 2: Figure numbers are not correct sometimes (see Figure 113).

Response 2:  The Figure number has been checked again

 

Point 3: Still have not found a link to data (but authors stated "Response 5: The test data has been uploaded.").

Response 3: Data has been re-uploaded

 

Point 4: In the references about sliding control, the authors missed mentions to the sliding control guru V. Utkin (I remember I read some works in the past by V Utkin, H Brandtstadter).

Response 4: Add the references

 

Point 5: The English usage should be a bit rechecked: for example I do not use an article near general things like stability but authors do.

Response 5: The language has been revised again.