A Study of Fault Signal Noise Reduction Based on Improved CEEMDAN-SVD

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article presents fault signal noise reduction using Complete Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition with Adaptive Noise and an improved threshold screening SVD. Attached are my observations that need to be addressed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments. We gratefully thank the editor and all reviewers for their time spend making their constructive remarks and useful suggestions, which has significantly raised the quality of the manuscript and has enable us to improve the manuscript. Each suggested revision and comment, brought forward by the reviewers was accurately incorporated and considered. Below the comments of the reviewers are response point by point and the revisions are indicated.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The study proposes a method consisting of CEEMDAN and an improved threshold screening SVD algorithm for noise reduction of vibration signals in rotating machinery. The proposed methods are well-defined for the specific problem. However, the following points are recommended for correction:

1.     Reference to CEEMDAN and SVD method in section 2 should be provided.

2.     The chosen window length for the SVD process in the study should be explained.

3.     Figure 3 has an incorrect figure label.

4.     In Figure 4, the x-axis should represent frequency, and the y-axis should represent amplitude.

5.     For better comparison, frequency spectra of IMF obtained from improved CEEMDAN and CEEMDAN should be plotted together.

6. The test signal, the reconstructed signal with the proposed method for noise reduction, and the original noisy signal should be plotted together for better visualization.

Author Response

Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments. We gratefully thank the editor and all reviewers for their time spend making their constructive remarks and useful suggestions, which has significantly raised the quality of the manuscript and has enable us to improve the manuscript. Each suggested revision and comment, brought forward by the reviewers was accurately incorporated and considered. Below the comments of the reviewers are response point by point and the revisions are indicated.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. English in the paper is very poor. It must be rewritten.
2. For the same reason, many major aspects of the paper are incomprehensible.
3. There are errors in a large number of formulas.
4. There is low-quality design of the paper and references.

English in the paper is very poor. It must be rewritten.

Author Response

Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments. We gratefully thank the editor and all reviewers for their time spend making their constructive remarks and useful suggestions, which has significantly raised the quality of the manuscript and has enable us to improve the manuscript. Each suggested revision and comment, brought forward by the reviewers was accurately incorporated and considered. Below the comments of the reviewers are response point by point and the revisions are indicated.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Can be accepted for publication

Author Response

Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments. We gratefully thank the editor and all reviewers for their time spend making their constructive remarks and useful suggestions, which has significantly raised the quality of the manuscript and has enable us to improve the manuscript. Each suggested revision and comment, brought forward by the reviewers was accurately incorporated and considered. Below the comments of the reviewers are response point by point and the revisions are indicated.

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The English in the paper has improved somewhere, but it still needs improvement. Maybe, the editor of the journal may help.

2. The design of the paper has also improved somewhere but still needs improving (there are no punctuation marks when giving formulas and explanations thereto (for example, Lines 144-146, 188-189, 194, 202, and many others); different font size in formulas (for example, Lines 126 and 129, 137 and 138 and many others); bad centered figures (for example, Fig. 1 and 3), etc.).

3. It is desirable that the conclusions contain the numerical characteristics of the method you have improved. However, it is necessary to emphasize that the studies were conducted on the selected object, and the results were based on a particular case (not objective).

4. I think it is better to show how CEEMDAN is different from the Improving CEEMDAN, since available in Table. 3 data regarding Kurtosis and Sample Entropy, this change can be only a few percent. What is the practical importance of the decisions you proposed?

The English in the paper has improved somewhere, but it still needs improvement. Maybe, the editor of the journal may help.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx