Next Article in Journal
Rules of Heliogeomagnetics Diversely Coordinating Biological Rhythms and Promoting Human Health
Previous Article in Journal
Improving the Coatability of Zn–Mg–Al Alloy on Steel Substrate by the Surface Pretreatment of SnCl2-Added Zinc Ammonium Chloride
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Regenerative Braking Control Strategy Based on AI Algorithm to Improve Driving Comfort of Autonomous Vehicles

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(2), 946; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13020946
by Myeong Hwan Hwang 1, Gye Seong Lee 2, Eugene Kim 1, Hyeon Woo Kim 1, Seungha Yoon 1, Teressa Talluri 1 and Hyun Rok Cha 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(2), 946; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13020946
Submission received: 2 December 2022 / Revised: 3 January 2023 / Accepted: 6 January 2023 / Published: 10 January 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors focus on improving the driving comfort and present the comfort regenerative braking system (CRBS) based on the artificial neural network to improve the ride comfort in autonomous vehicles.

Major weaknesses: extensive editing of English language is required. There are too many grammar mistakes.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. The readability of our manuscript was increased by following your suggestions. We are uploading the response, Please see the attachment. Thank you again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments:

·        Citation missing for figure 1, 2, and table 1.

·        Rewrite the title for figure 1, 2, and 3; it is too descriptive.

·        The manuscript has been written in very poor English language and has missed punctuations very often.

·        The analysis has been done for the car traveling in a straight line in one direction. There is no specific study for the braking operation when the car will be turning or when the car will be run in the reverse direction.  The practical application of this AI-based Regenerative braking methodology has limited or no scope of application on practical grounds.

·        The title of the manuscript defines its application in practical life, but no such scenarios have been taken into account while evaluating the efficacy of the braking system.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. The readability of our manuscript was increased by following your suggestions. We are uploading the response, Please see the attachment. Thank you again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report


Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. The readability of our manuscript was increased by following your suggestions. We are uploading the response, Please see the attachment. Thank you again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The text should be further polished.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. The readability of our manuscript was increased by following your suggestions. We are uploading the response, Please see the attachment. Thank you again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Does the proposed methodology have limitations in braking capability with variations in the road profiles?

2.  Apart from simulation studies, can you specify if any practical demonstrations have been done or not? if yes, then please specify its detailed assessment.

3. Fast and reliable braking system is very crucial at the time of sudden encounters on road. Does your study take into account these scenarios? Kindly provide details accordingly. 

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. The readability of our manuscript was increased by following your suggestions. We are uploading the response, Please see the attachment. Thank you again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The corrections in the manuscript are given generally by the authors in a very short time, but it can also be improved. 

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. The readability of our manuscript was increased by following your suggestions. We are uploading the response, Please see the attachment. Thank you again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Moderate English changes required.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. The readability of our manuscript was increased by following your suggestions. We are uploading the response, Please see the attachment. Thank you again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Framing sentences could have been better throughout the paper, and I have seen repetitions of the same concept at different places.

2. "The difference between normal braking and regenerative braking is shown in Figure 2, 25 where the left image represents traditional or conventional braking and the right image 26 shows a regenerative braking system, as seen in [3]." Do you really feel this is correct?

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. The readability of our manuscript was increased by following your suggestions. We are uploading the response, Please see the attachment. Thank you again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop