Creepage Distance Estimation of Hairpin Stators Using 3D Feature Extraction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the authors to provide this work, This work is really interesting and I believe useful for various applications for Electrical Drives. I still have a concerns as follows:
A new section showing a comparison with the existing methods needs to be presented. The authors proposed a novel technique, however, this is a technical research article, authors should validate the work. However, please provide a comparison table with others latest work, mention their method, materials and results, and compare with your work for more clear and more quickly understand.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
A new section showing a comparison with the existing methods needs to be presented. The authors proposed a novel technique, however, this is a technical research article, authors should validate the work. However, please provide a comparison table with others latest work, mention their method, materials and results, and compare with your work for more clear and more quickly understand.
We thank the reviewer for the effort and appreciate the comments and suggestions.
In accordance to the reviewer's suggestion we worked further on section 2. and added a subsection in the state of the art, named „3D Feature Extraction and Product Metrology “. In this section we focused on 3D feature extraction methods and relevant approaches. Subsequently we outlined the scope of our research.
Hence, we presented a novel method for estimating the creepage distance in hairpin stator, we validated the general principal. An extensive validation including different types of stators is something we want to address in future articles.
Reviewer 2 Report
1. This study seems interesting. The experiments are well presented, and the results have value for practitioners. However, discussion is very limited. The chapter Results and discussion is mainly about results. There is barely any discussion involved.
2. Please remove Figure 3.
3. Figure 2—please add scale bar
4. Strengthen the abstract section. It is very lengthy in preset form. Remove unnecessary information and add key conclusions of the work in the last two lines.
5. Discuss the motive behind the work. The clear application of the work should be discussed in the introduction section. From the introduction section application of the work is not clear.
6. There are numerous spelling and grammatical errors. Please revise the manuscript thoroughly. Sentences are also not complete.
7. The novelty of the work should also be discussed in a separate paragraph.
8. Try to make a bridge between current and previously published work and specify the gap area and objective of the work. Add the specific gap observed from the literature at the end of the introduction section.
9. Experimental section needs a clear and concise discussion.
10.Work is presented well but the technical discussion is very poor.
Please finish it. Some leading works regarding “3D feature extraction and product metrology” should be discussed in the introduction.
---Wang, X., Zhang, X., Ren, X. et al. Point cloud 3D parent surface reconstruction and weld seam feature extraction for robotic grinding path planning. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 107, 827–841 (2020).
---Zhao, X., Li, Q., Xiao, M. et al. Defect detection of 3D printing surface based on geometric local domain features. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 125, 183–194 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-10662-w
---Zhang, H., Ge, XB., Qiu, YY. et al. Automatic generation method of 3D process models for shaft parts based on volume decomposition. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 118, 1043–1060 (2022).
---Feng, H., Ren, X., Li, L. et al. A novel feature-guided trajectory generation method based on point cloud for robotic grinding of freeform welds. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 115, 1763–1781 (2021).
Product metrology
---Buchanan, K.E.; Sgobba, S.; Celuch, M.D.; Perez Gomez, F.; Onnela, A.; Rose, P.; Postema, H.; Pentella, M.; Lacombe, G.; Thomas, B.; de Langlade, R.; Paquin, Y. Assessment of Two Advanced Aluminium-Based Metal Matrix Composites for Application to High Energy Physics Detectors. Materials 2023, 16, 268.
---Harmatys, W.; Gąska, P.; Gąska, A.; Gruza, M.; Jedynak, M.; Kobiela, K.; Marxer, M. Applicability Assessment of Different Materials for Standards Ensuring Comparability of Optical and Tactile Coordinate Measurements. Materials 2022, 15, 4128.
---Sabbah, A.; Romanos, G.; Delgado-Ruiz, R. Impact of Layer Thickness and Storage Time on the Properties of 3D-Printed Dental Dies. Materials 2021, 14, 509.
---Urbas, U.; Zorko, D.; Vukašinović, N.; Černe, B. Comprehensive Areal Geometric Quality Characterisation of Injection Moulded Thermoplastic Gears. Polymers 2022, 14, 705.
11.Finally, I would suggest the author to address the questions above in the revision. I am pleased to review the revised manuscript.
1. This study seems interesting. The experiments are well presented, and the results have value for practitioners. However, discussion is very limited. The chapter Results and discussion is mainly about results. There is barely any discussion involved.
2. Please remove Figure 3.
3. Figure 2—please add scale bar
4. Strengthen the abstract section. It is very lengthy in preset form. Remove unnecessary information and add key conclusions of the work in the last two lines.
5. Discuss the motive behind the work. The clear application of the work should be discussed in the introduction section. From the introduction section application of the work is not clear.
6. There are numerous spelling and grammatical errors. Please revise the manuscript thoroughly. Sentences are also not complete.
7. The novelty of the work should also be discussed in a separate paragraph.
8. Try to make a bridge between current and previously published work and specify the gap area and objective of the work. Add the specific gap observed from the literature at the end of the introduction section.
9. Experimental section needs a clear and concise discussion.
10.Work is presented well but the technical discussion is very poor.
Please finish it. Some leading works regarding “3D feature extraction and product metrology” should be discussed in the introduction.
---Wang, X., Zhang, X., Ren, X. et al. Point cloud 3D parent surface reconstruction and weld seam feature extraction for robotic grinding path planning. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 107, 827–841 (2020).
---Zhao, X., Li, Q., Xiao, M. et al. Defect detection of 3D printing surface based on geometric local domain features. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 125, 183–194 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-10662-w
---Zhang, H., Ge, XB., Qiu, YY. et al. Automatic generation method of 3D process models for shaft parts based on volume decomposition. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 118, 1043–1060 (2022).
---Feng, H., Ren, X., Li, L. et al. A novel feature-guided trajectory generation method based on point cloud for robotic grinding of freeform welds. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 115, 1763–1781 (2021).
Product metrology
---Buchanan, K.E.; Sgobba, S.; Celuch, M.D.; Perez Gomez, F.; Onnela, A.; Rose, P.; Postema, H.; Pentella, M.; Lacombe, G.; Thomas, B.; de Langlade, R.; Paquin, Y. Assessment of Two Advanced Aluminium-Based Metal Matrix Composites for Application to High Energy Physics Detectors. Materials 2023, 16, 268.
---Harmatys, W.; Gąska, P.; Gąska, A.; Gruza, M.; Jedynak, M.; Kobiela, K.; Marxer, M. Applicability Assessment of Different Materials for Standards Ensuring Comparability of Optical and Tactile Coordinate Measurements. Materials 2022, 15, 4128.
---Sabbah, A.; Romanos, G.; Delgado-Ruiz, R. Impact of Layer Thickness and Storage Time on the Properties of 3D-Printed Dental Dies. Materials 2021, 14, 509.
---Urbas, U.; Zorko, D.; Vukašinović, N.; Černe, B. Comprehensive Areal Geometric Quality Characterisation of Injection Moulded Thermoplastic Gears. Polymers 2022, 14, 705.
11.Finally, I would suggest the author to address the questions above in the revision. I am pleased to review the revised manuscript.
Author Response
- This study seems interesting. The experiments are well presented, and the results have value for practitioners. However, discussion is very limited. The chapter Results and discussion is mainly about results. There is barely any discussion involved.
We thank the reviewer for the effort and appreciate the comments and suggestions.
In accordance to the reviewer's suggestions we worked extensively on the discussion.
- Please remove Figure 3.
In accordance to the reviewer's comments figure 3 was removed and we focused on the specifications of the utilized measurement system.
- Figure 2—please add scale bar
Following to the reviewer's suggestion, a scale bar was added.
- Strengthen the abstract section. It is very lengthy in preset form. Remove unnecessary information and add key conclusions of the work in the last two lines.
According to the reviewer's comments, the abstract was sharpened, redundant or superfluous information was removed, and the work of this study was highlighted.
- Discuss the motive behind the work. The clear application of the work should be discussed in the introduction section. From the introduction section application of the work is not clear.
In order to to the reviewer's suggestion we revised this specific section. At the end of the introduction we emphasize the novelty and outline the relevance.
- There are numerous spelling and grammatical errors. Please revise the manuscript thoroughly. Sentences are also not complete.
Within the revision process of the paper the grammar and language has been improved in every section.
- The novelty of the work should also be discussed in a separate paragraph.
According to the reviewer's comments the novelty of the proposed approach for automatic estimation of the creepage distance was emphasized at the end of section 1 and section 3.
- Try to make a bridge between current and previously published work and specify the gap area and objective of the work. Add the specific gap observed from the literature at the end of the introduction section.
In accordance to the reviewer's comments, we improved the structure of our paper. By adding an additional subsection “2.3. 3D Feature Extraction and Product Metrology” we specified the gap area in order to formulate the problem definition afterwards.
- Experimental section needs a clear and concise discussion.
Some critical considerations regarding the limits of accuracy, especially in the case of incorrectly meshed data, were added to the discussion to address the reviewer's comments and motivate future improvements.
10.Work is presented well but the technical discussion is very poor.
Further, it was addressed that it is not possible to validate the approach due to lack of reference data.
Please finish it. Some leading works regarding “3D feature extraction and product metrology” should be discussed in the introduction.
---Wang, X., Zhang, X., Ren, X. et al. Point cloud 3D parent surface reconstruction and weld seam feature extraction for robotic grinding path planning. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 107, 827–841 (2020).
---Zhao, X., Li, Q., Xiao, M. et al. Defect detection of 3D printing surface based on geometric local domain features. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 125, 183–194 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-10662-w
---Zhang, H., Ge, XB., Qiu, YY. et al. Automatic generation method of 3D process models for shaft parts based on volume decomposition. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 118, 1043–1060 (2022).
---Feng, H., Ren, X., Li, L. et al. A novel feature-guided trajectory generation method based on point cloud for robotic grinding of freeform welds. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 115, 1763–1781 (2021).
Product metrology
---Buchanan, K.E.; Sgobba, S.; Celuch, M.D.; Perez Gomez, F.; Onnela, A.; Rose, P.; Postema, H.; Pentella, M.; Lacombe, G.; Thomas, B.; de Langlade, R.; Paquin, Y. Assessment of Two Advanced Aluminium-Based Metal Matrix Composites for Application to High Energy Physics Detectors. Materials 2023, 16, 268.
---Harmatys, W.; Gąska, P.; Gąska, A.; Gruza, M.; Jedynak, M.; Kobiela, K.; Marxer, M. Applicability Assessment of Different Materials for Standards Ensuring Comparability of Optical and Tactile Coordinate Measurements. Materials 2022, 15, 4128.
---Sabbah, A.; Romanos, G.; Delgado-Ruiz, R. Impact of Layer Thickness and Storage Time on the Properties of 3D-Printed Dental Dies. Materials 2021, 14, 509.
---Urbas, U.; Zorko, D.; Vukašinović, N.; Černe, B. Comprehensive Areal Geometric Quality Characterisation of Injection Moulded Thermoplastic Gears. Polymers 2022, 14, 705.
In accordance to the reviewer's comments we improved the introduction section as well as the state-of-the-art section. In the latter we added a subsection „3D Feature Extraction and Product Metrology “. We appreciate your literature suggestions that we considered within creating this section and revising the paper.
- Finally, I would suggest the author to address the questions above in the revision. I am pleased to review the revised manuscript.
We thank the reviewer for the effort and appreciate the comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article titled 'Estimation of Geometric Features of Hairpin Stators in Electrical Drives using 3D Feature Extraction' concerns the measurement of harirpin stators using a 3D scanner based on fringe projection. The subject of the research is important, and very topical, as it concerns the measurement of relatively new elements with complex shapes used in elertric vehicles. The authors presented a methodology for processing measurement data to determine one of the key feature of harpin stators, namely creepage distance. The article is in correct form and reads well. The thought course is clearly presented. I evaluate the article very positively. I present only minor comments below:
1. Since the authors focused on determining one specific feature of harpin stators, the title could have been less general and indicated creepage distance.
2. The literature reference in line 98 after Mayr is missing.
3. In Table 1 (or in the text), the robot's parameters, particularly positioning accuracy, could also be mentioned.
4. In Data processing, the software used should be cited.
5. What was the criterion for defining the outliers shown in fig. 13?
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the effort and appreciate the comments and suggestions.
- Since the authors focused on determining one specific feature of harpin stators, the title could have been less general and indicated creepage distance.
In accordance to the reviewer’s suggestion we revised the title of the paper. We decided to rename the article into “Creepage Distance Estimation of Hairpin Stators using 3D Feature Extraction”.
- The literature reference in line 98 after Mayr is missing.
Thanks to the reviewer’s suggestion we corrected this mistake.
- In Table 1 (or in the text), the robot's parameters, particularly positioning accuracy, could also be mentioned.
Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we added some specifications on the utilized robot kinematics. Within section 4, the experimental setup, we summarized the hardware specification in Table 1. “Specification of the robot kinematics and the applied fringe projection sensor”.
- In Data processing, the software used should be cited.
According to the reviewer's comments, a small section on software with regard to data processing has been added.
- What was the criterion for defining the outliers shown in fig. 13?
The passage in which the corresponding metric of geodetic edge vertices was introduced was supplemented with further explanations. It is the number of edges of a cluster that has a shortest geodesic path to an adjacent stripping edge.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised manuscript now can be accepted in the journal for publication as the authors have incorporated all the suggestions.
The revised manuscript now can be accepted in the journal for publication as the authors have incorporated all the suggestions.
