An Optimization Model for Ship Speed Based on Maneuvering Control

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present an optimization model of ship speed during manoeuvring. Some comments can help during the revision as follows:

1. The introduction requires more improvement. The authors must follow up on the trend of energy efficiency in ships, in particular in manoeuvring. So more refs must be mentioned.

2. It is not clear the novelty of the work must be improved.

3. Why the authors used PSO and not genetic algorithm (GA), for instance, and why not other optimizers like fmincon as it is faster to find the optimal solution than the PSO and GA?

4. The authors need to define the optimization problem, for instance, objective, boundary limits, constraints, etc.

5.  level 5 sea state scene is the Beaufort scale, which must be clearly defined.

6. In weather conditions, what is the methods used to compute the added resistance due to wave and wind?

7. the equations must be written separately and not inside the text.

8. Conclusion needs improvement.

9. The refs must be written according to the journal format.

10. Is it possible to consider cavitation and noise problems from the propeller? 

10. Some refs can help the authors; the authors can search for ship routing models.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.06.035
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10081039
https://doi.org/10.5750/ijme.v163iA3.805

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102337

Route planning of a fishing vessel in coastal waters with fuel consumption restraint

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper contains information technical and innovative that justifies its publication. The problem addressed is current and has significant relevance. More specifically, the optimization model of ship speed based on maneuvering control is of utmost importance in this pandemic scenario. The abstract is well written. The paper is well organized and convincing. However, there are some issues to be addressed before its publication.

o   The title is general and should be edited by presenting the methodology and case study.

o   The authors need to go through the entire manuscript to double-check the accuracy/consistency of each equation, table, figure, and reference and to ensure that English grammar errors are avoided.

o   The English form should be improved, typos are present, and the syntax needs to be revised to improve legibility.

o    should make explicit all the acronyms in the main text (e.g., IMO).

o   The literature review needs to be extended. The following paper should be considered to give an opportunity to readers about recent real-life applications of recent optimization algorithms: Evolving chimp optimization algorithm by weighted opposition-based technique and greedy search for multimodal engineering problems; Robust Grey Wolf Optimizer for Multimodal Optimizations: A Cross-Dimensional Coordination Approach; Chimp optimization algorithm; Dynamic levy flight chimp optimization; A weighted chimp optimization algorithm;

o   Afterward, they have to answer the question: why do they use PSO instead of the aforementioned algorithms.

o   How can the proposed solution be compared with other possible solutions such as those mentioned above, among others?

o   The manuscript has no trace of the algorithms’ experimental setup and parameter settings. In fact, there is no sensitivity analysis for the proposed algorithm (can be found in: Real-Time COVID-19 Diagnosis from X-Ray Images Using Deep CNN and Extreme Learning Machines Stabilized by Chimp Optimization Algorithm). These are very important aspects in any experiment with parameters.

o   The discussion of the results needs to include the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed algorithm.

o   The experimental results are weak. In the results presented, average “Avg” and standard deviation “Std” are elementary statistical measurements and are not enough to justify the performance of the proposed algorithm. The authors ought to have also compared the function evaluations and success rates of the algorithms. Furthermore, the results ought to have been analyzed using non-parametric statistical tools so as to justify any significant difference between the proposed and other benchmark algorithms (For example, the p-value of Wilcoxon rank-sum test, which can be found in: Underwater targets classification using local wavelet acoustic pattern and Multi-Layer Perceptron neural network optimized by modified Whale Optimization Algorithm) 

o   Furthermore, where are the limitations of your study? Clarifying the study’s limitations allows the readers to better understand under which conditions the results should be interpreted. A clear description of the limitations of a study also shows that the researcher has a holistic understanding of his/her study. However, the authors fail to demonstrate this in their paper.

o   In terms of conclusion/implications, did your findings suggest a need for further research, what might this consist of, and how might such research extend or improve the current state of knowledge in this field? Are there any practical implications that need to be addressed? All these were not highlighted in the concluding remarks.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents  An Optimization Model of Ship Speed Based on Maneuvering Control. From the technical aspects, the paper has enough contribution. However, there are some major and minor issues that need to be addressed:

1- In introduction, some credits to the recent works are suggested to enrich the literature like Solar energy, Volume 183, 1 May 2019, Pages 1-16; Engineering Review, 2021, 41 (2), 26-40; WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on SYSTEMS and CONTROL, 2020, 15 (37), 356-365; Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems, 2019, 5 (1), 1-17; International Journal of Control Systems and Robotics, 2019, 4, 115-123 ;ISA Transactions, 2016 (60), 333-347; ICIC Express Letters, 2017, 11 (4), 763-772; Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 2018 (100), 466–481; International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Software Applications, DOI: 10.1109/ICEESA.2013.6578380

2- In terms of theory, this reviewer needs to see more to justify that this work gives new contributions. The motivation of the study should be further emphasized. In particular, the main contributions of the results in this paper should be clearly demonstrated.

3- The unique features of the proposed study and the main advantages of the results over others must be clearly commented. And a comparison with existing results will be useful to demonstrate the usefulness of this paper. In particular, the advantages and contributions of this paper compared with others should be highlighted.

4- The proposed control strategy requires many design parameters, so, could you please show how to choose these parameters and the effect of them? This will give readers the insight of the physical meaning of your approach and is good for regeneration.

5- More physical interpretation and explanations are required to be discussed in the presented graphs.

6- Some related papers need to be added in the revision version and some outdated references can be removed.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Please read the attached file. Thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

No more comments.