Next Article in Journal
Optimization of the Cooling Scheme of Artificial Ground Freezing Based on Finite Element Analysis: A Case Study
Next Article in Special Issue
A Novel Reliability Analysis Approach under Multiple Failure Modes Using an Adaptive MGRP Model
Previous Article in Journal
Comparative Analysis of Atterberg Limits, Liquidity Index, Flow Index and Undrained Shear Strength Behavior in Binary Clay Mixtures
Previous Article in Special Issue
A New Method for Fatigue Evaluation of Titanium Alloy Welded Structures
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Dynamic Preventive Maintenance Optimization of Subway Vehicle Traction System Considering Stages

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(17), 8617; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12178617
by Qi Gong, Li Yang, Yonghua Li * and Bin Xue
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(17), 8617; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12178617
Submission received: 27 July 2022 / Revised: 20 August 2022 / Accepted: 24 August 2022 / Published: 28 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Trends in Lifecycle Reliability Engineering)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of paper titled “Dynamic preventive maintenance optimization of subway vehicle traction system considering stages is quite interesting and well presented, but I have some questions and suggestions for improvements. I am asking the authors to comment on them: 

  1. Are there no similar methods of optimizing the maintenance of metro rolling stock anywhere in the world? I have some doubts. The literature review should be expanded to include experiences such as European, Canadian and American. Otherwise, the paper may only be a case study of a given region. 

  1.  Is it not possible to adopt maintenance and inspection models from other industries (e.g., machines or cars)? If not, why this method will be better? It should be checked and compared. 

  1.  I would like to make sure that in the formulas "•" does ordinary multiplication, not scalar? If so, why is the multiplication sign omitted in most cases and added here (e.g., formula 7)? 

  1.  What are (are there) the disadvantages and shortcomings of the described method? Something else that needs to be analyzed or supplemented? What are the further plans for the research development? 

 

I have also one suggestion regarding to text formatting: 

  1. Not all figures have the same good resolution. Please pay attention on it and correct figures 6 and 7. 

  1.  The numbering used in the chapter 2 in the form "(x)" is also used for the numbering of formulas, which may be misleading. I propose to change it. 

  1.  Why you used double “—” when you described some signs (e.g .: “?? —— the maintenance cost required ...”? 

 

I think the research topic is important, especially from an economic and safety point of view, but a much better review of the literature and analysis of existing solutions should be carried out.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper proposed a method for dynamic preventive maintenance optimization of a subway vehicle traction system. 

The presented approach is interesting

The structure of the paper is clear

the paper can be accepted with minor changes

 

1. Figure 1: tj1, tj2, and tm should be defined properly.

2. Figure 5: Figure Legend should be displayed on the figure

3. Figure 5: Text size should be uniform

4. There are many typos that could be improved like punctuation marks, commas, etc. are missing in many places. 

5. The authors should clearly describe which algorithm they used to optimize the problem given in equations 12 and 18.

6. How minimum preventive maintenance reliability threshold is set? What is the effect of this threshold on the results

7. Table 4 results should be explained further. How maintenance cost/CNY is calculated?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors of the paper replied to the questions asked, responded to the comments and corrected the errors indicated.

In my opinion the paper can be accept in present form.

Back to TopTop