Research on an Ice Tolerance Control Method for Large Aircraft Based on Adaptive Dynamic Inversion
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The paper jumps from Figure 2 to Figure 4, with no Figure 3 included. This may lead to confusion for the reader.
2. Figure 1 could benefit from additional details or labels clarifying which colors represent which elements, as the current presentation might confuse readers regarding the layers of ice formation.
3. On line 118, "A transport plane" should be "a transport plane" as the research object, to maintain consistency in capitalization.
4. Although the authors mention future directions in the conclusion, a more detailed section on future research could provide a clearer roadmap for how this research could be further improved. This could include exploring different aircraft types, more complex icing conditions, or integration with other control systems. Also, discussions on limitations such as the density, thickness, and coverage area of different ice types and characteristics would be beneficial.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAn adaptive dynamic inverse ice tolerance control method has been developed to consider the effects of icing on aircraft control performance. The simulation results indicate valid performance. However, the following concerns must be addressed before the manuscript is suitable for publication:
1. In the aircraft dynamics model, the authors have not accounted for the system modeling of icing conditions, specifically the term \Delta\bar{M}_{ice}. Furthermore, there is no apparent relationship between the nonlinear system (13) and the proposed aircraft dynamics model (2).
2. There is a minor spelling error in Line 262/373 ("Represents," etc.).
3. In Subsection 3.1 ("ANDI Adaptive Control Architectures") and Subsection 3.2 ("Performance Analysis of Closed Loop System"), the authors should clearly describe the purpose of these sections. Additionally, the manuscript references Section 3.3, which is missing. Furthermore, the specific state predictor algorithm needs to be detailed.
4. The fault-tolerant controller designed in (49) lacks a clear definition and modeling of the fault it aims to address.
5. The representation of the ANDI method is inadequate, making it difficult to understand the contribution of this manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents a strategy for fault-tolerant flight control under the influence of ice for an aircraft. It focuses on the impact of icing on aircraft control performance and introduces an Adaptive Dynamic Inversion (ANDI) fault-tolerant flight control method based on piecewise constant adaptation. It aims to enhance control performance by addressing aerodynamic parameter changes caused by icing through adaptive control strategies and control allocation algorithms. In general, the problem is interesting but requires more analysis from the point of view of fault diagnosis and fault-tolerant control.
1. The abstract must be self-contained, and therefore explicitly mentioning type A and type B icing does not make sense because it is not explained what it is. It is best to describe the characteristics of each type in the abstract.
2. In lines 42 and 58, what is "home and abroad"? if this refers to the geographic location of the authors please delete it. Otherwise, this could be a mistranslation of the terms, then, please correct.
3. In the introduction, please expand the literature review about fault diagnosis and fault-tolerant control.
4. More analysis of control techniques dedicated to fault diagnosis and fault-tolerant control in UAVs, for example, is required, e.g. actuator and sensor fault estimation based on a proportional multiple‐integral sliding mode observer for linear parameter varying systems with inexact scheduling parameters, ijrnc; and in particular some techniques dedicated to diagnosing icing in UAVs, e.g. robust fault and icing diagnosis in unmanned aerial vehicles using LPV interval observers, ijrnc.
5. I do not believe the modeling is a contribution. Several models of this aircraft can be found in the literature. In which aspect this is novel? please justify it with the literature review.
6. Title of subsection 2.1 is missing.
7. Put the units of the variables in the modeling to ensure consistency in the dimensions. This is because it seems that the angles and angular velocities of the model are in radians and radians/second respectively. While in the rest of the article, angles are mentioned in degrees. Maintain consistency or explicitly make this to the reader. The result section also mixes radians and degrees in some tables. Units must not be italicized, they must be in an upright position.
8. The subsections of sections 2 and 3 read disconnected. It is necessary to improve the writing to avoid losing the thread of the reading. The transition between sections 2 and 3 even needs to be improved.
9. Explain why the relationship m >= n must be satisfied. This is not true in the model developed in section 2.
10. In equation 17, why A_m needs to be Hurwitz? is this true for your system? It seems that the definition of A_m is wrong.
13. Please put your main result in the form of a theorem.
12. Why are the types of icing studied relevant? Are there no other types or why limit the study to these two specific cases?
13. In the results section describe the simulation conditions. Do the simulations start with some type of icing without increasing/decreasing? I suggest that the simulations start without icing and then include it as an incipient fault that grows as it would occur in a real case. Illustrate this icing formation.
14. The conclusion section reads like a summary, please improve.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language must be improved, there are typos, and incomplete sentences, which require connectors such as prepositions or even verbs to be correct. Revise the writing thoroughly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed and answered all of my points and questions that were given in the previous review.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have well addressed my concerns, and the manuscript has been revised accordingly.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am happy with the revised version.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
