A Review of Electro-Mechanical Brake (EMB) System: Structure, Control and Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a reasonable method to solve a real application problem. It is well-organized, clearly writing, and shows some interesting results that encouraged to be accepted with major revision. However, the commented questions need only to be answered.

1. Please explicitly indicate and clarify the challenges this study aims to address. What are the challenges and why? Why cannot the previous studies well address these challenges.

2. At the end of section 1 add a table that summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of existing survey papers discusing the same problem. This way the reader would rapidly appreciate novelty of the paper. 

3. Fig.1 is not clearly shown.

4. Please enrich the captions of all figures and tables for clarification.

5. Fig.32 need more explain.

6. I also find some grammar problems in this paper. Author needs to carefully check these low mistakes, which is very important for readers. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions. Please find my itemized responses in below and my revisions in the re-submitted files.

Point 1: Please explicitly indicate and clarify the challenges this study aims to address. What are the challenges and why? Why cannot the previous studies well address these challenges.

Response 1: The integrated structure of the actuator will have a fundamental impact on the effectiveness of control algorithms and vehicle applications. At present, there are many kinds of actuator schemes with different structures and functions, but no mature products. We thus provide a research method to summarize the existing structure schemes. To the best of our knowledge, actuator structure schemes have not been analyzed in detail in any paper

Point 2: At the end of section 1 add a table that summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of existing survey papers discusing the same problem. This way the reader would rapidly appreciate novelty of the paper.

Response 2: Comparision of existing survey papers on the EMB has been added in Section 1 (Table 1).

Point 3: Fig.1 is not clearly shown.

Response 3: We add two more figures to clearly show the distribution of patents (corresponding to Table 2).

Point 4: Please enrich the captions of all figures and tables for clarification.

Response 4: The captions of all figures and tables have been enriched.

Point 5: Fig.32 need more explain.

Response 5: The control algorithm shown in Fig.32 (now Fig.34) has been explained in more detail.

Point 6: I also find some grammar problems in this paper. Author needs to carefully check these low mistakes, which is very important for readers.

Response 6: We are very sorry for the grammatical errors. The whole article has been reviewed again to rectify these errors.

Thanks again for your comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper provides a review of Electro-Mechanical Brake (EMB) System considering its structure, control, and application. The estimation algorithm for indirect clamping force control and the direct clamping force control algorithm of the actuator are summarized. In addition, the requirements of the EMB system for intelligent vehicles and its typical architecture are analyzed, and the preliminary application of the EMB system in intelligent driving is summarized.

This paper provides a comprehensive review. In addition, it is very well organized. Meanwhile, the authors should consider the following issues:

-There is a marked revised paper which is attached below. The authors should consider some required revisions and comments provided in the marked revised paper. There are typing and grammatical errors that should be corrected. The addition of the following paper can help to enrich the References part:

1-"A European Association for the Control of Structures joint perspective. Recent studies in civil structural control across Europe". Structural Control and Health Monitoring. 2014 Dec;21(12):1414-1436. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1652

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions. Please find my itemized responses in below and my revisions in the re-submitted files. 

Point 1: There is a marked revised paper which is attached below. The authors should consider some required revisions and comments provided in the marked revised paper. There are typing and grammatical errors that should be corrected. The addition of the following paper can help to enrich the References part:

1-"A European Association for the Control of Structures joint perspective. Recent studies in civil structural control across Europe". Structural Control and Health Monitoring. 2014 Dec;21(12):1414-1436. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1652

Response 1: We are very sorry for the typing and grammatical errors. The whole article has been reviewed again to rectify these errors. And the above-mentioned paper has been added to the references part (References-7).

Thanks again for your comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper, the authors have reviewed Electro-Mechanical Brake System. There are some suggestions to be incorporated in the manuscript

1. Figure 2 and 16 are not readable. Enlarge its size.

2. Check grammar throughout the paper, For example on Page 26,  (L1 and L2 level) should be  (L1 and L2 levels).

3. Rewrite the conclusion of the paper by including some performance of improvement data in comparison of existing papers.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions. Please find my itemized responses in below and my revisions in the re-submitted files. 

Point 1: Figure 2 and 16 are not readable. Enlarge its size.

Response 1: The size of Figure 2 and 16 (now Figure 4 and 18) has been enlarged.

Point 2: Check grammar throughout the paper, For example on Page 26,  (L1 and L2 level) should be  (L1 and L2 levels).

Response 2: We are very sorry for the grammatical errors. The whole article has been reviewed again to rectify these errors.

Point 3: Rewrite the conclusion of the paper by including some performance of improvement data in comparison of existing papers.

Response 3: We have rewritten Section 1 to show the improvement of our work in comparison of existing papers (Table 1).

Thanks again for your comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 4 Report

1. Results: Recommend to be Major revisions      

This paper decomposes, by analyzing the basic structure of electro-mechanical brake (EMB) actuator, the actuator into five modules: service brake module, parking brake module, brake clearance compensation module, quick-return module and sensor module, and reviews the development status of the actuator. On the basis of basic structure, the estimation algorithm for indirect clamping force control and the direct clamping force control algorithm of the actuator are summarized. In addition, the requirements of the EMB system for intelligent vehicles and its typical architecture are analyzed, and the preliminary application of the EMB system in intelligent driving is summarized, including vehicle stability control and advanced driving assistance.

This paper is with some merits for Sustainability, it could be re-considered after major revisions.  

Firstly, the abstract should be refined to clearly indicate what authors had done within 150 words.

Secondly, for Section 1, authors should provide the comments of the cited papers after introducing each relevant work. What readers require is, by convinced literature review, to understand the clear thinking/consideration why the proposed approach can reach more convinced results. This is the very contribution from authors. In addition, authors also should provide more sufficient critical literature review to indicate the drawbacks of existed approaches, then, well define the main stream of research direction, how did those previous studies perform? Employ which methodologies? Which problem still requires to be solved? Why is the proposed approach suitable to be used to solve the critical problem? We need more convinced literature reviews to indicate clearly the state-of-the-art development. And very importantly, authors always have to write a paragraph saying: “The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 contains the literature review. Section 3 contains the methodology (method). Section 4 contains the results. Section 5 contains the conclusions and policy implications”. So, the reader knows what’s coming next.

For Sections 2 to 5, authors should also introduce their proposed review framework more effective, i.e., some essential brief explanation vis-à-vis the text with a total research flowchart or framework diagram for each proposed algorithm to indicate how these employed models are working to receive the experimental results. It is quasi valuable to learn some insight conclusions from each section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions. Please find my itemized responses in below and my revisions in the re-submitted files. 

Point 1: The abstract should be refined to clearly indicate what authors had done within 150 words.

Response 1: The abstract has been refined to 150 words according to your suggestions.

Point 2: For Section 1, authors should provide the comments of the cited papers after introducing each relevant work. What readers require is, by convinced literature review, to understand the clear thinking/consideration why the proposed approach can reach more convinced results. This is the very contribution from authors. In addition, authors also should provide more sufficient critical literature review to indicate the drawbacks of existed approaches, then, well define the main stream of research direction, how did those previous studies perform? Employ which methodologies? Which problem still requires to be solved? Why is the proposed approach suitable to be used to solve the critical problem? We need more convinced literature reviews to indicate clearly the state-of-the-art development. And very importantly, authors always have to write a paragraph saying: “The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 contains the literature review. Section 3 contains the methodology (method). Section 4 contains the results. Section 5 contains the conclusions and policy implications”. So, the reader knows what’s coming next.

Response 2: Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions. We do realize that Section 1  does not clearly indicate the drawbacks of previous work and our contribution. So we have rewritten Section 1 to explicitly indicate and clarify the challenges we aim to address. And the comparision of existing survey papers on the EMB are shown in Table 1. Besides, the paragraph you mentioned above has been added at the end of Section 1.

Point 3: For Sections 2 to 5, authors should also introduce their proposed review framework more effective, i.e., some essential brief explanation vis-à-vis the text with a total research flowchart or framework diagram for each proposed algorithm to indicate how these employed models are working to receive the experimental results. It is quasi valuable to learn some insight conclusions from each section.

Response 3: We think your suggestion is very reasonable. But there are too many algorithms mentioned in the paper, and it is difficult to summarize within one research flowchart. Therefore, we selected several representative algorithms and added the corresponding framework diagram ( Figure 40, 41, 42) to show how these algorithms are working to receive the experimental results.

Thanks again for your comments and suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is acceptable in its current form 

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors have completely addressed all my concerns.