Defect Detection on a Wind Turbine Blade Based on Digital Image Processing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is a study on the defect detection of wind turbine blade based on image processing and is considered a valuable study in related fields. The reviewer's opinions are as follows.

1. Abstract should be concisely and clearly described, including the background, purpose, method, result, and conclusion of the study.

2. In the description, ambiguous expressions should be avoided and quantitative numerical values or objective grounds should be presented. 

3. It is necessary to describe existing efforts(papers) regarding the problems (not the simple description of the existing studies). The methods that solved the problems perceived in previous similar studies should be described in detail(academic excellence on this paper).

4. In the section describing the experimental method, the composition of the data-set should be clearly explained. It should be described in such a way that general readers who related the fields can understand. In other words, it should be possible to solve the question of whether the detection of defects can be explained by the composition of the provided data.

5. It is necessary to describe the limitations of the study and additional studies required in the future.

Thank you very much.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled” Research on Defect Detection of Wind Turbine Blade Based on Digital Image Processing” (Manuscript ID: processes-1329823). The Reviewer #1 and#2 made constructive remarks, and your comments are valuable and very helpful for improving our paper. We have studied their comments carefully and made correction accordingly. We have studied their comments carefully and made correction accordingly. In the manuscript the comments for reviewer #1 are all highlighted in red, those for reviewer #2 are highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer 1

Comment 1: Abstract should be concisely and clearly described, including the background, purpose, method, result, and conclusion of the study.

Response: Thank you for your kind reminding. This change is highlighted in red in Abstract.

Comment 2: In the description, ambiguous expressions should be avoided and quantitative numerical values or objective grounds should be presented. 

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. In this paper, we delete the original ambiguous sentences, and use specific numerical values in the summary and analysis of experimental results. This change is highlighted in red in Abstract and Analysis of Experimental Results

Comment 3:  It is necessary to describe existing efforts(papers) regarding the problems (not the simple description of the existing studies). The methods that solved the problems perceived in previous similar studies should be described in detail (academic excellence on this paper).

Response: Thank you for your kind reminding. In the introduction part, the research of using the digital image in defect detection is added. This change is highlighted in red in the Introduction.

Comment 4: In the section describing the experimental method, the composition of the data-set should be clearly explained. It should be described in such a way that general readers who related the fields can understand. In other words, it should be possible to solve the question of whether the detection of defects can be explained by the composition of the provided data.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. The acquisition and composition of data sets are explained in 2.1. Finally, the composition of the experimental data set is highlighted in red in 4.2.

Comment 5: It is necessary to describe the limitations of the study and additional studies required in the future.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. This change is highlighted in red in the Conclusion.

Special thanks to you for your valuable comments and suggestions.

We greatly appreciate for reviewers’ constructive suggestions and hope that the corrections will meet the publication requirement of processes

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the study "Research on Defect Detection of Wind Turbine Blade Based on Digital Image Processing" Authors make an attempt to use image processing for wind turbines blade fault detection. Authors proposed their own method for analyzing and processing the images to detect faults.

The study is interesting, and method proposed could help with the blades fault detection. Unfortunatelly, the presentation of achievements of this work is not good. Especially reall confusing is the structure of introducion and mixed description of proposed method and results. The detailed comments are pesented below:

• The abstract should be improved. Please try to put the following information in the abstract: background/novelty of the study, aim of the study, methods used, most important results, conclusions.
• lines 53-57- something is wrong with the sentences, please re-write it, now it is hard to understand, 
• Figure 2 - it should be figure 1 I suppose, or you didn't put inside the manuscript the figure 1,
• In the introduction, the literature review about the research conducted so far should be done, this should highlight the gap and novelty of your work.
• the purpose of the paper line 48-51 should be placed rather after literature review, at the and f the introduction. 
• In the introduction, please also add the contribution of your work.
• please explain all abbreviations (for instance UAV) in the place where they first appear. 
• please add the parameters of the DJI Jingwei UAV named Matrice 210 RTK in the text, 
• Please add the reference soures for equations where appropriate, 
• in section 3 the methods, so your new method, is mixed with results it is hard to follow the methods used and the  discussion of the results, I suggest to add he section with your method description, and then section with the results and discussion, 
• In the materials and methods section, you shuld add the block diagram, which will show step by step the proposed method,
• When you divide the section 3 for methos and results, please discuss your results with recent findings from other studies, 
• In the conslusion section please highlight the advantages of proposed method and its utility. Please explain in the conclusions why the proposed method is better than others.
• Please check the English and correct the typos.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled” Research on Defect Detection of Wind Turbine Blade Based on Digital Image Processing” (Manuscript ID: processes-1329823). The Reviewer #1 and#2 made constructive remarks, and your comments are valuable and very helpful for improving our paper. We have studied their comments carefully and made correction accordingly. We have studied their comments carefully and made correction accordingly. In the manuscript the comments for reviewer #1 are all highlighted in red, those for reviewer #2 are highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer 2

Comment 1: The abstract should be improved. Please try to put the following information in the abstract: background/novelty of the study, aim of the study, methods used, most important results, conclusions.

Response: Thank you for your kind reminding. This change is highlighted in red in Abstract (The same opinion as the first reviewer, so it is highlighted in red).

Comment 2: lines 53-57- something is wrong with the sentences, please re-write it, now it is hard to understand.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. This change is highlighted in yellow in the Introduction

Comment 3: Figure 2 - it should be figure 1 I suppose, or you didn't put inside the manuscript figure 1. the purpose of the paper line 48-51 should be placed rather after literature review, at the and f the introduction.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. This change is highlighted in yellow in the Introduction

Comment 4: In the introduction, the literature review about the research conducted so far should be done, this should highlight the gap and novelty of your work.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. In the introduction part, the research of using the digital image in defect detection is added. This change is highlighted in red in the Introduction (The same opinion as the first reviewer, so it is highlighted in red).

Comment 5: In the introduction, please also add the contribution of your work.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. This change is highlighted in yellow in the last paragraph of the Introduction

Comment 6: please explain all abbreviations (for instance UAV) in the place where they first appear. please add the parameters of the DJI Jingwei UAV named Matrice 210 RTK in the text.

Response: Thank you for your kind reminding. We explained the abbreviations that appeared for the first time, such as UAV and PSO. We add the parameters of the DJI Jingwei UAV named Matrice 210 RTK in Table 1.

Comment 7: in section 3 the methods, so your new method, is mixed with results it is hard to follow the methods used and the discussion of the results, I suggest to add he section with your method description, and then section with the results and discussion, when you divide the section 3 for methos and results, please discuss your results with recent findings from other studies.

Response: Thank you for your kind reminding. We have adjusted the content structure of section 3, put the method description together, and discuss the experimental analysis as section 4, which will be clearer.

Comment 8: In the conslusion section please highlight the advantages of proposed method and its utility. Please explain in the conclusions why the proposed method is better than others. 

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. This change is highlighted in yellow in Conclusions

Comment 9: In the materials and methods section, you shuld add the block diagram, which will show step by step the proposed method. 

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We added the block diagram in Figure 12.

Special thanks to you for your valuable comments and suggestions.

We greatly appreciate for reviewers’ constructive suggestions and hope that the corrections will meet the publication requirement of processes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

thank you very much for your corrections, which makes that article is more transparent for readers. I have only one minor point. The literature review which you added in lines 71-80 should be extended and more complex. 

Good luck!

Author Response

更正声明

尊敬的审稿人：

感谢您的来信以及审稿人对我们题为“基于数字图像处理的风力涡轮机叶片缺陷检测研究”（手稿 ID：processes-1329823）的评论。审稿人#1 和#2 提出了建设性意见，您的意见很有价值，对改进我们的论文很有帮助。我们仔细研究了他们的意见，并相应地进行了更正。我们仔细研究了他们的意见，并相应地进行了更正。在手稿中，审稿人#2 的评论以蓝色突出显示。

审稿人 2

评论：非常感谢您的指正，使这篇文章对读者更加透明。我只有一个小问题。您在第 71-80 行中添加的文献综述应该扩展且更复杂。 

回复：谢谢您的好意提醒。我们在引言中扩展了更复杂的文献综述，这一变化在引言中以蓝色突出显示。

特别感谢您提出宝贵意见和建议。

我们非常感谢审稿人的建设性建议，希望更正能够满足流程的发表要求 。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf