Model-Based Digital Overall Integrated Design Method of AUVs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Articles should be published on general issues. New points about scientific research have not been clearly demonstrated

Ok

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presented a Model-Based Systems Engineering Approach, which is specialized to perform the whole of development lifecycle for AUVs. This model was clearly explained for the phases of requirements analysis, design, implementation and realizations of AUVs

This work could provide a good reference and have guiding significance for the development lifecycle of AUV.

In my opinion of MBSE and “Unified Architecture”, the paper may be added:

+ The information of UAF (Unified Architecture Framework) reference: https://www.omg.org/uaf/

+ MBSE Application to Controllers of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles Based on Model-Driven Architecture Concepts …

The paper is publishable in this journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper proposes a digital overall integrated design method for the design and simulation integration of AUV and constructs a common conceptual master model for design, simulation, and other task stages. This work is interesting for model-based systems enginering in the context of marine science, nevertheless it has some issues to be addressed before publication.

1.  The state of the art must be further improved. New proposals have been introduced and must be considered, for example:

https://www.mdpi.com/2411-9660/7/4/93

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00163-023-00416-4

Please make a deeper and recent review of the sate of the art

2. In section 2, the overall integrated design is described. Here a V-method is described however it is not mentioned. Design stages such as task, system design stage, etc. are poorly described. Moreover, they are not depicted in Figure 1; thus making harder to understand this section. Probably, Figure 2 describe better those stages.

3. In section 3, the model generation is discussed, here the problem of consistency is highlighted.  Authors claim "In this study, as shown in Fig. 2, a unified model framework for the design and simulation of an AUV is established" . This does not make clear the design framework. It is not clear how the interface mapping and parameter mapping is developed (Functional Mock Up?). Moreover, data files such as framework,  structure nor parameter are technically described (.xls, .txt?). In this section, authors also claim "The parameter correlation mapping and consistency checking of the visual-design model and simulation model are realized", how the consistency checking is performed? (see: https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2010-28615)

4. Sections 3.1 to 3.3 describe unified models for architecture, interface and model. Please, make an effort to integrate software which might be used for the design process.

5. Section 4, describes the multidisciplinary collaborative specification proposal. It is not clear how this study was performed. Please include some references to previous works of design experiences of the authors. What does table 4 aims to depict?

6. In section 5, please, make an effort to integrate software which hs been used for the model based design method. Please, improve quality of figure 8 to 15.

7. Section 6.2 is too poorly described. This reviewer suggest to better describe it all along the paper.

8. MBSE framework consider standar tools, models and paradigms. Please integrate them to make the article more MBSE-familiar. For example, SysML diagrams using Cameo will improve the quality of all the figures.

9. All in all it is not clear the contribution of the paper, please explain. Are the authors developing a software such as Cameo?

 

Please make a check for all the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

More than an article, it gives me the idea of an overview of the state of the art and of the MBD methodology applied to mechatronic systems of industrial interest.

Even the reference to AUVs is "weak" as all the arguments related to the MBD approach and 3D modeling could be used for any mechatronic system.

There is no quantitative comparison of any kind between state-of-the-art works, much less do the authors propose technical evidence (through simulations, performance summary tables in terms of indices/metrics of typical interest) of advantage in the design flow discussed in this Work.

Furthermore, if the authors wanted to propose an overview of the use of MBD and formal or digitalized validation techniques, the analysis of the state of the art is very limited. We are talking about a very verbose and qualitative article of about 25 pages in which a total of 17 articles are cited.

Furthermore, making a technical reflection, the validation process of algorithms and components from a system point of view is not mentioned, which is why the MBD is used. For example, to verify the computational complexity of algorithms and models for emulation of the behavior of the physical system during the initial design phases and to verify performance and satisfaction of specifications (both design of the system itself and of the algorithms and performance).

I recommend integrating a more technical discussion supported by clear results (e.g. dynamic simulations and analysis of navigation/control algorithms, or, other).

Below I refer to some works in which MBD and formal verification methods in the industrial mechatronics field are discussed.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-12429-7_15

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-66729-0_26

The authors must take inspiration from the analyzes reported in these articles and above all analyze the state of the art in more detail by verifying the presence of specific works on AUVs, which contain more technical and quantitative arguments in order to be able to present a direct comparison, such as a comparison table of results or analysis of pros and cons of specific design choices.

This type of analysis is not present in the current version.

I'm waiting for the new version of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

All my comments were correctly addressed.

Author Response

We deeply appreciate the valuable feedbacks and constructive comments on our submitted manuscripts of the stated title. 

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors greatly improved the manuscript, taking into account my comments and making them cohere with other reviewers' comments.

If the authors agree, I recommend strengthening the state of the art a bit more with the following work, in which advanced model-based design paradigms such as co-simulation and the use of MBD SW tools for exhaustive analysis of the computational complexity of mechatronic process control algorithms akin to AUV are mentioned:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9805740

https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/16/4057

Otherwise, I congratulate the authors for the good research work presented.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback on the manuscript, and I'm pleased to hear that you found the improvements satisfactory, with the integration of your comments and alignment with those from other reviewers. 

Your suggestion to further strengthen the state of the art with the incorporation of advanced model-based design paradigms is indeed valuable.  And the references have been added in [18-20].

[18] BERNARDESCHI C, DINI P, DOMENICI A, et al. Co-simulation of a Model Predictive Control System for Automotive Applications; proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM), Electr Network, F Dec 06-10, 2021 [C]. 2022.

[19] Bernardeschi C , Dini P , Domenici A ,et al.Formal Verification and Co-Simulation in the Design of a Synchronous Motor Control Algorithm[J].Energies, 2020, 13.DOI:10.3390/en13164057.

[20] Dini and S. Saponara. Processor-in-the-Loop Validation of a Gradient Descent-Based Model Predictive Control for Assisted Driving and Obstacles Avoidance Applications[J]. IEEE Access, 2022, 10, 67958-67975. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3186020.

Thank you again for your continued dedication to improving the quality of this work. Your insights and recommendations are greatly appreciated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf