A New Real-Time Pinch Detection Algorithm Based on Model Reference Kalman Prediction and SRMS for Electric Adjustable Desk
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, authors mention three contributions. I will give my opinion on the contributions you stated.
(1) A system model is established with consideration of the DC motor characteristics and the coupling of the system.
→ Actually, the state-space model for DC motor system has been well known. In addition, dual motor position synchronization problem is not new research topic. I think the contribution you are claiming is not so novel.
(2) For a new model reference Kalman perdition method, the load torque signal is selected as a pinch state variable of the filter by comparing the current signal.
→ Actually, the new model is just the augmented state-space model where the load torque signal is selected as a state variable. There were cases where the estimation filtering technique is applied by considering abnormal signal(such as load torque, fault, unknown input etc.) as a state variable. I think this attempt is not new at all.
In addition, in page 5, the DC motor system suddenly changes from a continuous-time model to a discrete time model for convenience. And then, the Kalman filter is applied to the discrete-time system after that. The description of the continuous time system seems too verbose.
Moreover, the Kalman filter equations (12a)~(13c) and the steady-state Kalman filter equations (14)~(16b) are already very familiar. I don't think the Kalman filter equations (12a)~(13c) need be mentioned in the paper because this paper only use the steady-state Kalman filter.
(3) To meet the need of the different loads of the electric table, the sliding root means square (SRME) of the torque is proposed to be the criterion for threshold detection.
→ For the pinch detection, this paper adopts the method of the confidence zone to judge whether the obstacles pinched. However, the method of the confidence zone was referred from [33]. If so, the only contribution of this paper is to use the method of sliding root mean square. I find it difficult to understand why using the sliding root mean square can be a contribution of this paper. There is a lack of explanation on why the sliding root mean square is better than other techniques.
When I evaluate this paper as a whole, there are few new attempts, and there is no solid background on what authors claim to be a major contribution.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. We have done our best to address all the concerns.
For more details, please see the attachment.
Thanks again for your help.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper contains interesting material but some parts can be substantially improved. The application addressed in this work is very interesting, in my opinion. I have some suggestions for increasing the impact of the paper and its quality. See below my comments.
- Please clarify if the "j" in Eq.(2a) represent an imaginary complex number.
- I suggest to remove Figure 1 or explain it in a substantial better way.
- Please improve the captions of Figures 3 and 4 adding more explanations.
- Have been all the variables in Eqs. (4) and (5) already defined in the text? please check or also recall in the text close to Eqs. (4) and (5).
- In Eq. (9) in the left side you have a letter 'o' or is a zero? please clarify.
- Please write conditions over the variables in order to have the approximations in Equation in lines 181 and 182.
- Filters that can easily handle with dynamic and static variables (very useful in your application) are the particle filters. For instance, you can also tuned online static parameters of the model. Moreover, they are quite more general and universal than Kalman filters. Particle filters are completely ignored in your state-of-the-art discussion. For instance, filters able to address dynamic and static variables are described in
C. Andrieu, A. Doucet, and R. Holenstein. Particle Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. J. R. Statist. Soc. B, 72(3):269–342, 2010.
I. Urteaga, M. F. Bugallo, and P. M. Djuric. Sequential Monte Carlo methods under model uncertainty, IEEE Statistical Signal Processing Workshop (SSP), pages 15, 2016.
L. Martino, V. Elvira, G. Camps-Valls, "Group Importance Sampling for Particle Filtering and MCMC", Digital Signal Processing Volume 82, Pages 133-151, 2018
C. M. Carvalho, M. S. Johannes, H. F. Lopes, and N. G. Polson. Particle Learning and Smoothing. Statist. Sci., Volume 25, Number 1 (2010), 88-106.
L. Martino, V. Elvira, G. Camps-Valls, "Distributed Particle Metropolis-Hastings schemes", IEEE Statistical Signal Processing Workshop, (SSP), 2018.
This discussion can increase the number of interested reader.
- I suggest to upload a final version of the manuscript in ArXiv and Research Gate in order to spread the material contained in this paper having more impact.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. We have done our best to address all the concerns.
For more details, please see the attachment.
Thanks again for your help.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper deserves publication!
As a reviewer’s point of view this work is a novel and an interesting one. The title of the contribution is precise, well-formulated and it fully corresponds the treated topic. The authors have a high level of understanding of current research, explanatory frameworks and problems within the field of inquiry. Appropriate research aims and objectives are delineated in this contribution. The paper is well-structured having a well-written abstract which reflects the content of the article. The authors clearly stated the problem under investigation in the introduction, summarized relative research. The article identifies the procedures followed. The contribution is written with clarity. The narrative is logical and coherent. The authors used the appropriate techniques for analysis of the research objects in order to meet aims of the study. The accurate interpretation of outcomes, well substantiated by the results of the analysis has been achieved by them. The presentation of the results in terms of the research objectives has been successfully made. Appropriate methods have been used in a well-founded manner. The authors have been able to draw logical conclusions from the results. Conclusions are accurate and clearly based on outcomes. The paper presents figures and tables of high quality.
The English language of the contribution should be improved by being corrected by a native speaker.
Nevertheless the authors should consider the following aspect:
Please clarify Eq. (17), (18), (19), (20) and (21). These Equations are quite important in the context of your contribution, but is not clear
Notwithstanding the literature list being well-made, I suggest to the authors to consider the following contribution for reading and completing the list of the research literature. This suggested paper proposes an alternative mehod to estimate Parameter of an electrical motor.
The paper deserves being published with minor revisions
@ARTICLE{Mercorelli2014352,
author={Mercorelli, P.},
title={Parameters identification in a permanent magnet three-phase synchronous motor of a city-bus for an intelligent drive assistant},
journal={International Journal of Modelling, Identification and Control},
year={2014},
volume={21},
number={4},
pages={352-361},
}
Author Response
Thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. We have done our best to address all the concerns.
For more details, please see the attachment.
Thanks again for your help.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I still feel that there is a lack of novelty in this paper, but the completion of the paper is high, so I decide to accept the publication.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper deals with an important application, but the authors need to work hard so that their idea, methods and results can be presented for the community.
First of all, a careful revision of sentences and concepts is necessary. In addition the authors should have taken care on formatting: it is not acceptable to submit a paper using different fonts and font sizes ...
Secondly, the whole discussion on H-infinity and Kalman filters seems inadequate as presented.
Thirdly, the presentation on CWT is unnecessary, its capability to represent transient behavior in some decomposition level should suffice. Nevertheless, the worse here is that most probably the CWT is not employed as the scheme that the authors present references a micro-controller unit.
In forth place, this will be my last comment but not because I have exhausted what there is to comment, Section 5 presents claims that are not supported neither by experiments, nor simulation or not even by analytical derivations.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. We have tried our best to solve all the problems.
See the attachment for more details.
Thanks again for your help.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, your idea is of interest and a nice, different approach for a journal dedicated mainly to measurements.
However, there are some points where you can improve your manuscript. The easiest is to check your formating (especially the equations) and your spelling.
Then, since the journal is dedicated to a specific area of expertise, you may add in the introduction more details about the adjustable desk. Yes, the name is pretty self-explanatory but it is not 100% clear.
Also, the quality (and clarity) of the pictures needs improvement and some visual comparison of the tests that you performed (pictures and tables) will increase the level of understanding of the added value of your proposal.
In the Discussion/Conclusion sections, some examples from real-life or when the problems might appear together with mitigation proposals should be added.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. We have done our best to address all the concerns.
For more details, please see the attachment.
Thanks again for your help.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The title is not very clear as it does not explain what it is about precisely and what the purpose of the work is. Even the abstract does not make it clear that it is about mechanical resistance evaluated by means of an electrical measurement. It also does not clarify that it is a safety system to protect people from the action of electromechanical devices. The technical objectives are better understood by reading the introduction but it is not sufficient to assess whether the article is of interest before reading it in depth.
Request of revision: it is necessary to better clarify which application it is, both in the title and in the abstract.
The work is correctly contextualized and the bibliographic research is adequate. The methods used are briefly described in the introduction but declared already used in many sectors and other similar mechanical applications.
Request for revision: the work may seem trivial because the introduction does not specify what is innovative in the proposed use, this theme deserves to be emphasized.
Figure 3b shows graphs that are too small to evaluate the effect of the filter and how much the filter also affects other frequencies.
Request for revision: figure 3b should be enlarged by widening the y-axis.
The description of the method for the evaluation of resistance (lines 169-184), with particular reference to the in-depth study on the selection of the lines of interest (185-206), is unclear and forces us to slowly and carefully imagine the graphic vision of what has been described.
Request for revision: it is advisable to insert in the parts listed above some figures as a graphic aid to the explanation.
The explanation of the experimental results is clear and comprehensive. The discussion (chapter 5) and the conclusions (chapter 6) repeat very similar concepts and could be integrated in a single chapter.
It would be interesting to know why there were no tests with only one of the two working sensors. This test would be of great interest to improve the reliability of the protection system itself.
There is also no information on the final cost of the device. It would be interesting to know if it is possible to install two or more completely autonomous devices to ensure maximum reliability.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. We have done our best to address all the concerns.
For more details, please see the attachment.
Thanks again for your help.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
An interesting paper that describe resistance detection method for electric adjustable desk. Subject selection is clearly justified, research question clearly outlined. Propper background study is presented. Data presented in an appropriate way and conclusions supported by experimental results. The study design appropriate to answer the research aim of the paper.
I suggest to accept contribution to be a part of Sensors Journal.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your affirmative comments.
We have double checked the sentences of the whole paper, redrawn all of the figures for higher visual effect. and an additional chart was added to illustrate the details of the methods as shown in Fig 4. Also, the conclusion had been modified for more accurate expression.
Thanks again.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I still observe and find the same problems as before. For example, the continuous wavelet transform is a formal and not a numerical one to provide overcomplete representations. English is still very confusing, and thus the paper does not clearly communicate the authors findings.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. We have done our best to address all the concerns.
For more details, please see the attachment.
Thanks again for your help.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
