Performance Enhancement of Vehicle Mechatronic Inertial Suspension, Employing a Bridge Electrical Network
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors present an approach to assess the performance enhancement of a vehicle mechatronic inertial suspension system using the bridge electrical network. Overall, the paper seems interesting but has some readability issues preventing an evaluation of its contribution to the research community. For instance, paper’s contribution is not completely clear. It would be nice to have a summary of the main contributions at the end of the introduction.
Table 1 is confusing, what does it mean company there? Maybe authors wanted to refer to the units in which the variables and parameters are.
The optimization problem is not formulated in a standard way. It is unclear whether the dynamical model is used in the optimization problem. It would be very convenient if more details regarding the optimization problem were included such as how the hyperparameters of the optimization algorithm were chosen or which software/toolbox was adopted to solve the problem. What about reporting the computational effort, and some convergence analysis of the solution? How many iterations were required to solve the problem? How sensitive is the optimization problem w.r.t. the initial condition of the parameters?
From the figures and tables, it is not clear whether the final comment of the authors holds. That is, it is not evident that the new suspension system works better overall than the traditional passive suspension system. Authors made a descriptive analysis of the results, but the report lacks a critical analysis of them. Results need more context to judge whether the proposed suspension system is indeed better. What about, for example, the relative improvement in the riding comfort of a passenger? Authors claimed that the optimization problem was formulated so that the riding comfort was included, but later in the results it is not verified whether an improvement was achieved.
In general, the number of tables and results presented could be reduced or condensed such that a more precise evaluation of the performance of the suspension system can be carried out.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, A bridge electrical network was designed to improve the performance of vehicle with mechatronic inertial suspension. This paper is well-written and clear, and the topic is value for scientific study. Some comments/suggestions are as follows:
1. The language of the work requires substantial improvement. And the names of scholars and the years in the introduction section need to be stated so that the timeline can be better understood.
2. Explain how the parameters of the complete vehicle model in Table 1 were selected
3. Why is the mechatronic inertial suspension only fitted to the rear suspension of the vehicle, please add a description.
4. The design ideas and working principles of the suspension need to be explained.
5. Some details of the parameter optimization process need to be explained, such as road conditions, vehicle speed and termination conditions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I have few comments and questions:
1. The novelty or superiority of the proposed particle swarm optimization algorithm should be stated.
2. The PSO algorithm flowchart lacks of necessary introductions (e.g., two properties of particles: velocity and position, end condition)
3. The value or contributions of this paper is not so distinctive. The last paragraph of the introduction needs to be rewritten to reflect what is the innovation of this work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much to the authors for the effort in clarifying the main concerns raised during the review. There are still some typos and punctuation issues. The quality of the paper has certainly improved and it deserves to be published after minor proofreading.
