A Review on Rolling Bearing Fault Signal Detection Methods Based on Different Sensors
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I found your article very interesting, but in my opinion below remarks would improve your manuscript under the scientific level.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
1. The Abstract is quite nice, I suggest to correct the “good bearing capacity” to “load capacity”.
2. In Introduction “rolling body” to “rolling elements”.
3. I would substitute the first sentence of 3rd paragraph in Introduction just that bearings are widely used in various areas of economy.
4. Regarding the second last paragraph of Introduction I miss the information about characteristic frequencies corresponding to the specific element of bearing. I would refer only to them and mention about the faults of on inner/outer ring (BPFI/BPFO), rolling element and fundamental train frequency (FTF).
5. Except Recurrence Plot (RP) Analysis in your case is called wrongly (Recursive graph), there is as well its quantitative method called – Recurrence Quantification Analysis (RQA). I suggest to add missing paper discussing it to your references:
· Ambrożkiewicz et al. (2022) The influence of the radial internal clearance on the dynamic response of self-aligning ball bearings. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 171, 108954.
6. Missing letters – Figure 8.
7. Poor quality of Figure 9.
8. In the list of References, I see some a little bit old papers, 10 years or older. What in your opinion is the reason for quitting some methods in the diagnostics of rolling-element bearings?
Author Response
Response to reviewer:
We appreciate your comments. The following is our response.
1.It has been modified.
2.It has been modified. Please see the yellow mark in line 46.
3.It has been modified. Please see the yellow mark in line 49.
4.It has been added, thank you for your perfection. Please see the yellow mark in line 45.
5.As for the article you mentioned, we have summarized it into this article. Thank you for your supplement.
6.Figure 8 has been modified.
7.Figure 9 has been deleted.
8.Thank you for your careful review. First of all, this paper only cites three articles more than ten years old (9,12,28). As this paper aims to introduce the relevant methods of studying rolling bearings, in order to ensure the integrity of the article, this paper is quoted. Because some methods have not been studied in recent years, it is uncertain whether there will be opportunities to draw new conclusions with other methods or devices in the future.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper addresses a review on detection method of rolling bearing fault signal 2 based on different sensors.
1- The abstract should be rewritten again. There is not enough information about the methodology, proposed work, conclusion y comparison with other works in this part. Also, the abstract can be rewritten with more details and some numerical results.
2- The introduction was started with extra information about rolling bearings, where should be referred to some references. The introduction is very short as a review article and does not have details about recent works. The introduction should be extended to new published papers for recent years.
3- I cannot see the details of the methods in this article. The methods were explained very short without preparing enough explanation. For example, sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 do not have any new information. They are completely well-know and can be referred to the references.
4- The block diagram in Figure 1 and 4 should be explained in a better way. There are many details, which have not been explained in the article. Also, if they are copy from some other articles or webpages, it should be referenced.
5- The comparison between the methods is not well discussed. The approaches were illustrated only on some specific simulations, which is not enough to draw a complete and accurate conclusion about the telecommunications methods.
6- The evaluations in not enough. All the comparison were included in just some tables without details.
7- Please, do not forget that the clarity and the good structure of an article are important factors in the review decision. Please read the paper carefully (again) and correct it in English.
Author Response
Response to reviewer
We appreciate your comments and we have specially changed them. Here are our answers.
- According to your suggestion, we have actively prepared.
- We put the extension in the paragraph after the introduction, see the area in yellow.
- The contents in Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 only introduce relevant basic knowledge, which is not suitable for writing fault detection methods here. Thank you for your suggestion.
- Thank you for your appreciation. Figure 1 can be said to be the structure block diagram of this article. The article is written according to this framework, with an overall view and an open pattern. Figure 1 is our original structure diagram. Figure 4 is the figure we made according to the steps of references. In this part, the author of the reference has been marked above the text.
- As for the details, the research methods focus on theory and practice. It is true that some experimental methods should be cited instead of just talking on paper, but we can always see similar "better advantages" in some research methods. Such characteristics cannot be generalized without a common comparison index or different indicators. Such details cannot be fabricated out of thin air.
- It is reasonable and has been corrected.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors presented an overview of articles on bearing defect detection. The review is incomplete, sloppy and I think the article should be rejected.
What is needed is a clear structure of the review. The list of sections is similar, but does not correspond to the one given in Table 1. It would be nice to bring everything to the same format.
The authors are not very competent.
- Table 1 lists an external sensor as a source of vibration signals, while there are already articles (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6501/aa7ab6 ) with an internal way to obtain such signals when the sensor is mounted directly on the shaft.
- In section 3.2.4 the authors write about the MUSIC algorithm, which is one of the representatives of parametric algorithms (Prony, Matrix Pencil, ESPRIT). The idea of such algorithms is that the signal is represented as a sum of sinusoids and the algorithm evaluates the parameters of these sinusoids. There is no spectral analysis here.
If we were to write a review, then in addition to the mentioned article using MUSIC, it was necessary to indicate the article https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9231196 using another parametric method Matrix Pencil.
- The authors do not very correctly call a recursive plot (RP) a recursive graph. The article https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/6/751 contains another time series to image transformation called Markov transition field (MTF) and should also be mentioned in the review.
In general, the paper is structured as follows - the authors give a brief description of the references in tables and the same text is duplicated in the corresponding paragraph. Moreover, one gets the impression that the text was simply inaccurately copied from the table, because every time in several sentences of the section there are no verbs.
First, I wrote out the line numbers with the missing verbs: Line 106, 107; 145, 146; 159; 200-201; 215-216; 246-247; 253-256; 260-262; 264-266 then I just stopped doing it.
I can also cite a number of comments that once again speak of a careless attitude to writing an article:
Line 126 and below - appropriate references are needed next to each kind of image
Line 137 - remove the duplicate «speed signal»
Table 2 – why THE FAULT is written in capital?
Table 3 – bisquature apparently should be replaced by bispectrum
Line 236 – “Algorithm is a new diagnostic method”. Which algorithm?
Line 242 – “Researchers usually analyze current spectra and spectra”. What is “current spectra and spectra”?
Line 269 and Table 5 – why INDUCTION is written in capital?
Table 6 - text from one column continues in another
Page 16 - It is not clear why the well-known formulas are given?
Then again, I just stopped fixing all the typos, but they are further throughout the article.
I believe that the review is unstructured, incomplete, written at a level insufficient for publication in a journal of this level and the article should be rejected.
Author Response
We appreciate your professional comments. Our responses are as follows.
1. Table 1 is just a division of the content of the article, and the following tables with similar formats can compare different types of methods.
2. We have added some supplementary literatures.
3. The whole article has been revised in view of the phenomenon of incomplete grammar and words.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors corrected the article based on most of the comments and observations. It can be accepted.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your comments on improving our manuscript. Thanks again for your careful review.
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Not all my comments were taken into account. English is not corrected, there is no clarity and literacy of the presentation of the material. The article is unreadable.
Let's look at paragraph 3.2.5 for example. The first sentence – «Through the remote realization of real-time monitoring and online diagnosis. » Where is the verb? The second – «This method can diagnose faults in real-time, but it takes a long time and costs a lot. » Which method? Next – «Remote monitoring method for radial load deep groove ball bearings in LBE based on torque». Where is the verb? What is LBE?
And such questions can be asked to all proposals. I believe that until this article is revised by an English language specialist, it cannot be understood.
The article is still formatted carelessly. DA-RNN is written somewhere in capital letters, but somewhere like this «Da-rnn». References to literature sources are designed in a different style. The paper [104] has authors, why are they not written in the corresponding reference? The reference on line 266 should be to article [59], not [57]. Abbreviation on line 317 should be RQA and not QRA. Why are the pictures in the article in the following order: 1,2,2,4,5,3,6?? Table 10, for example, contains a link to Hongtao Tang et al., 2021 (third row), but the previous 4 cells of the corresponding row are empty. Unfortunately, the article was written without concern for the reader, it is simply unpleasant to read.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your comments on improving our manuscript. We have revised the language of the article under the guidance of professional English experts. Thank you very much again for your careful review.
Authors
