Data-Driven Predictive Maintenance Policy Based on Dynamic Probability Distribution Prediction of Remaining Useful Life

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This draft mainly focuses on developing a new model for data-driven Predictive Maintenance. The author had done solid and significant works. However, the quality of presentation is poor. I tried to give tracks to improve this article, but I think there are many efforts to be done before getting to a clear draft. Here I strongly encourage the author to do a thorough revision and polish of the draft, especially the English language, terminology, and organizations of the drafts. Some questions and comments are as follows.

1.       The abstract should give more introduction of the background, such as the data-driven Predictive Maintenance, why it is important.

2.       Page 1 line 16: Further it gives the recommended maintenance time through a comprehensive optimization 16 target.

Please check the grammar and revise.

3.       English language needs an extensive revision and polish.

4.       For the abstract, what is the main contribution of this work? What are the main advances of the proposed model compared with previous works? What is the significance of this work?

5.       Page 1 line 26-31, check grammar and revise.

6.       The introduction section should be concise and clear, please revise and reorganize, only introduce the most important and relevant background, highlight the state-of-art for previous works as well as their limitations.

7.       Page 1 line 32, “two problems” or “two issues”?

8.       The key points of should be highlighted at the beginning of each paragraph.

9.       Page 5 line 175, “2. Problem description” or “2. Theoretical models”?

10.   Please check all terminologies, terms should be consistent with publications in the field.

11.   Figure captions are too thin. Please fully explain the figures in the captions.

12.   For the conclusion section, please trim the introduction of the background and discuss more about the results, some key questions should be discussed and emphasized, for example, beside the main conclusion, what are the advances and limitations of the proposed model? For which case dose the proposed model fits best? What is the main contribution to the field?

English language needs an extensive revision and polish.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper combined the LSTM with KDE-SGB to establish new dynamic PdM policy. The authors also discussed D-PdM policy with the PeM, C-PDM, and IdM policies, and the impact of different maintenance operation costs and duration on the maintenance effect. Overall it seems that this paper is very well written, the logic behind each step and conclusion is relatively well supported. As such, I recommend the present work for publication. It would be very helpful if the authors could provide the dataset and the model trained (e.g params) for the audience to reproduce the results presented in this work. 

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We have added a link in the revised manuscript for visiting related documents. Datasets, programs, and calculation results of this work can be found in https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/shulian00/pdm-bearing.

Reviewer 3 Report

I do not have any particular comments. The presentation could be even more interesting and intriguing if the used dataset was collected for more unstable operations.

It  appears that a minor proofreading would improve the text.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. Yes, currently, the policy proposed in this work has only been validated in the case of bearings under fixed operating conditions, which demonstrating its effectiveness in a single operating situation. However, its performance applied in complex operating conditions and for different equipment or components still needs to be verified. Due to the lack of data on different operating conditions, we are currently unable to provide relevant demonstrations. This will be one of the directions for our future work.

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read this paper. The authors made extensive research and put considerable effort into it. However, I express some concerns as follows. The authors need to revise the paper for publication.

1.       The findings of this study in the Abstract is not clear. Describe the findings of this study using quantitative indicators and add implications accordingly.

2.       The Introduction section appears somewhat disorganized. This section requires restructuring. It is recommended to separate the Introduction section and the Literature Review section.

3.       In the Introduction section, Please enhance the background of this study and explain why this research needs to be conducted.

4.       The analysis of the performance evaluation results in the "4.3. Performance evaluation of PdM policies" section is quite limited. Please analyze in detail the quantitative values presented in Table 4 and Figure 10 in this research and add their implications.

5.       Contributions in the "5. Conclusion" section must be more precisely indicated. The theoretical contribution and practical implications of this manuscript should be clearly stated.

6.       It is recommended to mention the limitations and future works of this study in the Conclusion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the author's efforts for the revision, which makes a huge difference, and the draft is lot clearer. The draft is suitable for publication, and I recommend accepting in the present form.