Design of Anti-Swing PID Controller for Bridge Crane Based on PSO and SA Algorithm
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
|
● Abstract underscores the content of work as the flow of description doesn’t seems will attract any reader. Existing gaps must be highlighted like why this work is necessary? ● Abstract focus on some tangible numerical outcome value to justify the work carried out ● Plagiarism shows 22% which seems to be on the higher side for a typical quality journal such as Electronics. ● Lot many grammatical corrections must be addressed in the whole manuscript |
|
· There are around 4-5 articles listed in 2022 and 2021 in reference but hardly any papers cited in the introduction or recent years. This shows the work has not been explained to the current state of today. · As in recent days PID controller related works are happening in good number, so the relevant articles must be explored and discussed. · As a reader would be more interested in objective, at the end of introduction one paragraph should be available. Which is missing… |
|
● It is always better to provide the flowchart of work carried out in the whole manuscript to hook the reader to the article, which is missing? ● What is the reason to prefer PSO-SA algorithm? Background of it? What is the percentage of accuracy of these methods? it should show the difference of old and newly proposed methods. ● Each of the terms must be justified with case study or case basis…same is for design of fitness function ● Section 5.2 talks about simulation, always the working condition considered for any problem is worst scenario but here the case seems to be a mediocre… as a author has to check this .. |
|
● Results and discussions are acceptable only with any correlation between the PSO, SA and combination for reliability or precision. Any proof for that (figure 6 only shows for a typical case). ● Is the system subjected to worst case with environmental extreme conditions such as noise factors ● It is advised to always prefer standard deviation or tolerance value for results extracted. ● There is no result comparative study with analytical/experimental/simulation for validation of the extracted results ● As author should explain why the phenomenon change over happening in figure 6 when compared with other existing reference, justify the same. ● Section 6, robustness analysis carried out for how many iterations? Any proof related to that? ● The phenomenon needs more explanations from figure 9 to 12 |
|
● The discussion section lags in explanation with respect to the work carried out. there are no citations in discussion section to compare the work with existing materials ● Conclusion looks to be generic need to compile the outcomes and state based on the tests conducted and convey how best this can fit in the current context for any application. ● In conclusion section, values must be displayed with explanation. It's better to mention the salient features of the entire work in terms of bullet points with current context |
Comments for author File: Comments.zip
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Thank you
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented manuscript deals with an interesting topic related to a Design of Anti-Swing PID Controller for Bridge Crane Based on PSO and SA Algorithm. The authors proposed a hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) and Simulated Annealing (SA) algorithm is proposed to optimize the coefficients of the Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) controller for the anti-swing and positioning control of an overhead crane. This study certainly is interesting and contains a lot of new research and information based on conducted research.
Nevertheless, I have a few comments on the article:
Figure 1 Motion diagram of bridge crane, please citation.
From line 109 to 148, please citation these data because they are the equation in many similar works.
Equation numbering is incorrect No. 5, 6, 7… repeats, please correct this and all others.
The paper has many shortcomings in the proposed algorithms and the authors have not made comparisons with other authors.
From Figure 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and figure 8 are blurred, please replace with better pixels. In the conclusions, you can add a few sentences that describe the results in more detail.
The code/simulation parts for these proposed algorithms are missing, since their generation seems to be taken from matlab, put in the presented manuscript to be more reliable ??
Are there limitations to the use of your method? If so, it would be worth mentioning in the conclusions?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have substantially improved the reviewer comments. As a reviewer, it seems the manuscript has come out well now and further it can be recommended for acceptance.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have considered all of the suggestions from us.
My recommendation is to accept the article.
