Fault Detection, Diagnostics, and Treatment in Automated Manufacturing Systems Using Internet of Things and Colored Petri Nets
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper introduced a fault diagnosis and treatment technique which combines the resulting network with IoT to guarantee the reliability of the CROPN. A GPenSIM tool is used to verify the reliability of the IoT-based CROPN. The results of the proposed method are compared to those found in the literature. Overall the paper is well written and good structure, my comments are as follows,
- When comparing the proposed method with ref. 41, 51, how about the conditions and parameters, are they all the same, please describe in detail,
- Why the authors chose two references 41 and 51 for validation, Please add others to showcase the effectiveness of the proposed method.
- In the experiment, the authors used current and acoustic sensors, How about their sampling rate? Normally the acoustic emission sensors have very high sampling rate, then the required bandwidth for transmission is high too, how the authors deal with this problem? Please specify in the Professor IoT model.
- In the introduction section, the authors could enlarge background with recent IoT studies for diagnosis and tool condition monitoring, for example, Machine Learning and IoT-based Approach for Tool Condition Monitoring: A Review and Future Prospects; Reliable Deep Learning and IoT-Based Monitoring System for Secure Computer Numerical Control Machines Against Cyber-Attacks With Experimental Verification; Experimental setup for online fault diagnosis of induction machines via promising IoT and machine learning: Towards industry 4.0 empowerment.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #1,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions, which greatly helped us improve the quality and presentation of this research work. We have modified our manuscript according to your comments, and the attached file includes brief answers to those comments. The comments from you are in green, and our answers are in blue.
Best regards,
Husam Kaid
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors studied IoT based colored Petri nets on system fault detection and treatments in automated manufacturing system. The implementation, testing and practical examples are explained in detail. The results from applying this algorithm to existing system from other references are validated and the improvement showed the reliability of the proposed algorithm. I would like to recommend this research work to be published on Machines after the authors adding additional discussions below:
(1) Does the proposed algorithm work well when the system has multiple failure points? Could the authors add discussions on how the algorithms handle this scenario that multiple fail points happened at the same time and how easy to locate these failure points?
(2) How the complexity of this algorithm scales up on larger system? Please add related discussions at the model section.
(3) Language needs polishing.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #2,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions, which greatly helped us improve the quality and presentation of this research work. We have modified our manuscript according to your comments, and the attached file includes brief answers to those comments. The comments from you are in green, and our answers are in blue.
Best regards,
Husam Kaid
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Here, authors have proposed a design methodology using "coloured resource-oriented Petri nets" (CROPNs) and IoT to identify significant reliability metrics in AMSs. While authors have performed a great deal of work in their study, some improvements and corrections can be suggested for better delivery.
1. Please briefly introduce the term 'cyber-physical systems' and their uses in the current context.
2. The introduction section should be rewritten to highlight the study's gap and purpose. Within the body of the manuscript, a few statements present the purpose of the study. Authors can re-arrange them together and clearly state the purpose of the current study/manuscript.
3. The overall structure of the manuscript seems confusing. At different stages of the manuscript, the authors discuss the experiment setups and experimental procedures. Please read through the manuscript again, and re-arrange the content in proper order. Present the experimental methods in a separate section and discuss the results separately.
4. Figures are very low resolution (Ex: Figures 6, 7 & 8). Please provide figures in better resolution.
5. Figure 9 - should the nomenclature be presented as a figure?
6. It would be okay if the algorithms were included as supplementary materials.
7. Page 11 - lines 333 to 354; this section would be suitable for the scope of the current study. Hence, it is suggested to use it under the introduction section. (this comment aligns with the third comment as well)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #3,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions, which greatly helped us improve the quality and presentation of this research work. We have modified our manuscript according to your comments, and the attached file includes brief answers to those comments. The comments from you are in green, and our answers are in blue.
Best regards,
Husam Kaid
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has improved, and the authors addresses all my questions, I have no comments so far,
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed the concerns I have raised satisfactorily.
