Fuzzy and Neural Network Approaches to Wind Turbine Fault Diagnosis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Please indicate in the introduction what the aim of the article is.
2. Please add a methodological part presenting: research assumptions, research process, applied methods.
2. Please add some practical implications.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the Anonymous Referee #1 for her/his comments and suggestions that have been exploited to improve the quality of the revised paper. The changes will be highlighted in yellow in the revised version of the manuscript.
- The paper’s Introduction has been modified in order to highlight the main aims of the article;
- A methodological part that illustrates the assumptions, the design process and the summary of the applied methods has been added to Section 3 of the revised version of the manuscript.
- The paper’s Conclusion and Discussion sessions added to the revised version of the manuscript have included some practical implications of the proposed solutions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors, please improve the manuscript:
“Abstract” is too long, but there are no specific results.
Please improve Introduction part especially Line 76-78. There are too many references, but there are not specific findings from references.
Validation part is not enough explained. Please describe validation (experimental) data. How did you choose validation data?
I recommend add Discussion part.
Please add specific results to Conclusion part.
Please add nomenclature, abbreviations section
Some typos:
Line 288: 5 m/s. -> 5 m/s
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the Anonymous Referee #2 for her/his comments and suggestions that have been exploited to improve the quality of the revised paper. The changes will be highlighted in yellow in the revised version of the manuscript.
The paper’s Abstract has been reduced and improved, by highlighting the main aims of the work.
The paper’s Introduction has been improved, by removing some references and adding more recent works, especially addressing artificial intelligence tools for fault diagnosis with application to wind turbines.
In the last part of the manuscript, a description of the validation data has been included.
In the last part of the manuscript, a new subsection with a more detailed discussion has been added to the revised version of the paper.
In the Conclusion section, some comments on the achievements have been included.
A nomenclature section has been included before the paper’s Introduction.
Typos such as ‘s.’ have been corrected in the revised version of the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper entitled “Fuzzy and Neural Network Approaches to Wind Turbine Fault Diagnosis” deals with a very important topic in wind energy literature, which is the implementation of reliable fault diagnosis methods. The topic has important practical applications and therefore is definitely adequate for the scientific purposes of the Applied Sciences journal.
The paper is very well structured and consistent: it arises clearly that it is a part of a long-standing research by the authors, who put this study well in the context of their previous works and of the literature in general. Therefore, the motivations are clear and the added value of this study is clearly indicated. Furthermore, the results section presents also a comparison with other methods.
Basing on this premise, my recommendation is that this manuscript is accepted after minor revisions which I indicate here on:
- There are some error languages here and there: I suggest a careful proof-reading;
- A list of symbols, clearly indicating the meaning, could be helpful for the reader. For example, Table 1 or non-numbered Equations below Equation 4: I have easily guessed what is what because of my expertise in wind energy, but in my opinion it would be better to improve the readability of the paper also for a slightly less experienced reader.
- A clearer explanation of the types of simulated faults would be welcome.
- Similarly, more details about the simulation time series would be welcome.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the Anonymous Referee #3 for her/his comments and suggestions that have been exploited to improve the quality of the revised paper. The changes will be highlighted in yellow in the revised version of the manuscript.
While revising the paper, the authors have cleared the English.
A table summarising the meaning of the symbols and measurements has been added to the revised version of the paper. A nomenclature section has been also included.
Section 2 has been modified in order to include a description of the simulated faults and the meaning of the measurements acquired from the wind turbine simulator.
Section 4 of the revised version of the manuscript has been modified in order to include the description of the simulated data.
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper is worth for acceptance, novelty of the idea seems interesting and small changes need to be incorporated in order to enhance.
This paper deals with an exciting topic. The article has been read carefully, and some crucial issues have been highlighted in order to be considered by the author(s).
(1) All the acronyms should be defined and explained first before using them such that they become evident for the readers.
(2) Most of the typos and incorrect grammars have been corrected, but it is still necessary to subject the paper to proofreading.
(3) The paper needs to be restructured in order to be precise.The Introduction and related work parts give valuable information for the readers as well as researchers. In addition recent papers should be added in the part of related work.
(4) Representation of figures needs to be improved.
(5) Grammatical errors should be validated.
(6) It would be good if similar domains, such as adversarial examples, would be reflected in future research or related work.
[1]Kwon, Hyun, Hyunsoo Yoon, and Daeseon Choi. "Restricted evasion attack: Generation of restricted-area adversarial example." IEEE Access 7 (2019): 60908-60919.
[2] Kwon, Hyun, Hyunsoo Yoon, and Ki-Woong Park. "Acoustic-decoy: Detection of adversarial examples through audio modification on speech recognition system." Neurocomputing417 (2020): 357-370.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the Anonymous Referee #4 for her/his comments and suggestions that have been exploited to improve the quality of the revised paper. The changes will be highlighted in yellow in the revised version of the manuscript.
(1) The revised version of the paper now includes a section with the definition of all acronyms.
(2) The paper has been revised and typos corrected.
(3) Section 1 of the revised version of the manuscript has been reorganised and modified. Several references were removed and replaced with more suitable and recent works.
(4) All figures have been modified and improved.
(5) The errors in the revised paper have been fixed.
(6) Section 4 of the revised paper has been modified and the suggested references [1, 2] are taken into account for a further comparison.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept
