A Mathematical Morphological Network Fault Diagnosis Method for Rolling Bearings Based on Acoustic Array Signal
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn general, this article is well written and complete. The abstract has been written well and clearly. The research background has been explained well and supported by citations from references, so that the novelty of this research is visible. The research methods have been well explained. Research methods need to be supported with appropriate references. The research results have been explained quite well, but need to be supported by more references, thereby strengthening the novelty of the research. Conclusions are made more general in accordance with the research objectives. More references need to be added, so as to further strengthen the results of this research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors addressed clearly the problem based on the good and updated review of literature they conducted. The novelty of work is good enough, however, there are some minor issues that needs to be revised by the authors to improve the contribution and the quality of this manuscript as follows:
1. The paper title needs to be revised to be clearer for the reader.
2. In lines 40 to 47, the authors mentioned three distinctive examples for more fault diagnosis broader approaches. Instead, I recommend the authors to rewrite it by mentioning the state-of-the-art signal processing techniques for early fault diagnosis of rolling bearing which includes denoising methods (Wavelet filtration), machine learning (Markov), and empirical methods (EMD based methods). Include more relevant references.
3. In line 92, there is a period missing before “Yan et. al [18]..”. Please revise the manuscript for typos.
4. In line 116, please identify the abbreviation of EAVGH. Line 126 is unclear and needs revision. Also, I recommend that the authors use passive voice instead of active voice throughout the manuscript.
5. The paper does not provide any insights into the robustness of the proposed method to different types of noise and variations in operating conditions. The case study is conducted as a simple scenario in an acoustic isolated chamber with no real-world heavy noise interferences. The authors are recommended to reply to this issue in the discussion section by how this method could be effective in real machinery with background noise scenarios.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript needs to be revised for typos and grammatic errors. Rather than that, the it is well written and clear to the reader.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is well written and organized. The references are fine, the conclusions are supported by the results and the results accuracy of 98 % is really nice. the quality of the figures can be improved by setting. It addressed the issue of detecting malfunctioning devices with the aid of machine learning techniques. The main issue concerns on how to deal with the presence of severe noise, scenario which was adequately addressed by the authors.
The topic was previously studied, but the authors present a novel approach to deal with noise. An important aspect is that the proposed approach can be used for a large number of applications, for example in the automotive industry. In my particular opinion, the novel mathematical approach is an important contribution.
The only thing I think the authors should do, which is another test direct installing a damaged bear-rolling from the beginning, i.e., time zero, in order to prove that the approach can detect this scenario. This situation can happen during a system start-up, for example.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors 1) The abstract is very lengthy and contains unnecessary materials. The authors should revise it by focusing on the new achievements rather than describing the existing materials. The first six lines are uselessly added. 2) Line 33, replace "in sectors" with "in applied sectors" 3) From line 115 to line 124, the authors have described the positive side of their research work. But, the negative side (or limitation) of a study is equally important. Either after line 124, the authors should describe the limitation of the proposed model or discuss it at the end of the abstract. 4) After describing the limitations of the study, then, a few lines as future research guidelines for new researchers should be discussed. 5) The programming software that is used for analysis should be discussed. 6) Line 407, the authors said, "It can be seen from Figure 14d". But, from Figure 14, it is not clear which one is Figure 14d. 7) Throughout the paper, the authors are saying that "Our method". It should be replaced with a more professional word, such as "The proposed method". 8) In Line 332, the authors said, "It can be observed from the figure that". Which figure, please indicate it with a number. 9) Line 350, replace "In the figure" with "In this figure or in Figure 11". 10) Line 356, replace "In the figure" with "In this figure or in Figure 12". 11) Line 436, replace "From the table" with "From Table 6". 12) Double-check the references list carefully. The references list is provided very carelessly. The references list should be unified. Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of the English language is required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The English of the paper needs extensive revision.
2. On line 153, what is the meaning of “anti-interference capability”? it needs more explanation!
3. Have you performed uncertainty analysis for your measuring devices?
4. The specification of the measuring devices is also should be mentioned in the paper.
5. The literature review is not well. Thev number of newly published work 2023 is low. It is recommended to consider some works especially from the present journal.
6. In Figures the captions a,b,…Have not been specified!
7. The discussion of the different fault analysis is not satisfactory. The explanation should be improved by physical discussion.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English of the paper needs extensive revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed my comments and the paper is now suitable for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is acceptable now
