Discrete-Time Design of Dual Internal Model-Based Repetitive Control Systems
, Purwowibowo Purwowibowo 1, Edi Kurniawan 1,*, Sensus Wijonarko 1, Tatik Maftukhah 1, Farakka Sari 2, Enggar B. Pratiwi 1 and Dadang Rustandi 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper presents a discrete time dual internal controller to reject uncertain periodic disturbances. In overall, the paper is pleasant to read even if there are numerous typos or bad syntaxes to be corrected through a more accurate proofreading. The manuscript is also very short for a journal paper and could be extended, regarding for instance the result section. More physical conclusions on the oscillation attenuations would be welcome.
Major remarks:
- The introduction is sometimes difficult to follow. For instance, the sentence "The early uses of RC..." is unclear, too long, and should therefore be rewritten.
- "In addition, the stabilizing controller also determines the convergence speed of the system error". In the presented results, the MPRC and DIMRC have different convergence speeds. Could the authors provide a few words on the MPRC ? Is the convergence speed different because of the structure design of MPRC which is different from the DIMRC? If yes, why choosing a controller with faster convergence speed? All the choices of the authors seem to be consistent but some comments about the MPRC could clarify the choice.
- In the third paragraph of the introduction, the applications of the itnernal model designs should be specified, namely for [10].
- The third sentence after (38) (page 11) should be rewritten.
- Some comments on the results, regarding the Quanser plants, are missing. Indeed, why would the steady-state error, using the MPRC, be embarrassing in regard to the plant? The robustness should not only be quantified but justified. Why is it usefull to attenuate these already (in the case of MPRC) small remaining oscillations?
- Perspectives to the current work would be welcome.
Minor remarks:
- "model-based" even for two models.
- "efficacy", efficiency?
- "Intended for"...intended to ?
- "slightly varied", varying?
Author Response
Please find the attached response for reviewer 1.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is concerned with discrete-time dual internal models-based repetitive control systems. The paper is well written, however, I suggest some comments.
-The motivation of the paper should be highlighted in the introduction.
- The figures are unclear.
- A comparison with existing results should be performed.
- The limitation of the proposed control scheme should be emphasized.
- Future work should be added.
- -What happened when you choose a degree filter in 31?
Author Response
Please find attached the response for reviewer 2.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviewer thanks the authors for their accurate responses and the changes provided to the manuscript which was, in turn, improved.
However, there is still some required English proofreading as, for instance, regarding the sentence " This is due to the resulting stabilizing controller will be unstable "
Moreover, the reviewer insists on the bad syntax when spelling "models-based" which, even for more than one model, should be "model-based".
Following these last corrections, the reviewer has no more recommendation.
Author Response
Please find attached the response to reviewer 1.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have well respond to my comments
Author Response
We are grateful that our revision has met the reviewer's satisfaction. Thank you again for your review work and helpful suggestions.
