Real-Time Hybrid Test Control Research Based on Improved Electro-Hydraulic Servo Displacement Algorithm
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have proposed a method for tuning the parameters of a controller using PSO for electro-hydraulic servo displacement. The reviewer has the following concerns regarding the papers:
1. There are several papers in which the researchers have proposed the PSO-based methods for tuning the parameters of a PID controller. The reviewer could not understand what is new in this method. Write the contributions of this research clearly in the introduction
2. What were the parameters used in the PSO? Provide a table of these parameters in the paper.
3. Please include more test cases to verify if the proposed methodology works efficiently under different scenarios.
4. Please carefully proofread the paper.
4. Please carefully proofread the paper.
Author Response
We appreciate your professional review of our manuscripts. All responses to questions are included in the document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors presented PID control with feed-forward control for test system. The manuscript seems nice. However following comments may be addressed:
1. The control effort should also be plotted and presented.
2. The resolutions of figures should be increased.
3. The write-up of PSO algorithm may be omitted or shortened as it is a very common algorithm.
4. The abstract part may be shortened.
Author Response
We appreciate your professional review of our manuscripts. All responses to questions are included in the document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The structure of the paper is correct. Nevertheless, some aspects of the paper should be revised and improved:
- Line 40: “displacement There are problems”. The manuscript requires careful attention to presentation. The text must be carefully checked in terms of styles and formatting for symbols, equations, figures, tables and references.
- A research paper must be on the frontier of knowledge. What is the scientific novelty of the work carried out? The introduction should be clear about the significance and novelty of the work presented compared to other works already published.
- Line 151: qA or q1? qB or q2?
- Sections 1, 2 and 3 are too long an introduction. The authors should summarize this part.
- On the other hand, Figures 9 and 10 should be explained in more detail. The same with figures 12 and 13.
- In my opinion, the authors have gone too long in the initial part (sections 1, 2 and 3). In addition, the most interesting part (section 4) is not detailed enough. A deeper discussion on the results obtained is lacking.
To conclude, in my opinion, the paper needs major modifications to be published in a prestigious scientific journal. The authors must clarify the scientific novelty of the work carried out. On the other hand, the manuscript requires careful attention to presentation.
Author Response
We appreciate your professional review of our manuscripts. All responses to questions are included in the document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed my comments. Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have adequately responded to all my comments. After this last review, the authors have made changes and the paper has been improved significantly. The paper can be published.