Adaptive Feedforward Control of a Pressure Compensated Differential Cylinder
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Fig 1.: Is it possible to explain the structure of the system shown in Fig 1. al little bit more? Especially the signal transmission
on the red dotted line.
Line 45f: However, the speed of convergence can be slow, if a sign-sign LMS ist applied.
Is the critical for the suggested application?
Fig3.: I understand that the update gain gamma is claculated as the product of position error and reference velocity. However,
I cannot find an update equation for gamma? Does adoption means that the adaption gain is calculated at every time stept?
General: Could a short explaination of the MIT-rule make the paper easier to understand?
Line 94: A picture of the CAD model?
Eqn 15: What is the Basis for Eqn (15)? Why a factor of 2 unter the sqrt?
Line 134f: I find it difficult that the same variable has different dimesnions. s/m^3 in line 134, but 1/m in line 135.
Line 137: "small" compared to what reference?
General comments:
- It would intersting to reas a comment about the question, if the control laws ar implemented as time-continous or time-discrete
control laws.
- The analyzed system seams to be a non-linear system. Has the nature of non-linearity any influence on the choice of the
control laws?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presents a novel adaptive feedforward motion control for a hydraulic differential cylinder, in terms of design, simulation and experimental verification.
The paper presents a certain degree of originality, because, to my knowledge, adaptive feedforward motion control of hydraulic cylinders has not previously been investigated.
The research design sketched in the paper is adequate, and as a whole the paper is highly comprehensible for the reader.
Thus, in my opinion the manuscript can be accepted for publication, provided that the Authors improve the presentation of the method and of the results, by taking into account the following minor revisions:
- the comparison with alternative techniques, should be improved, by expanding the description of such techniques, as well as the bibliography;
- more data on the crane (e.g. weights of the links) should be added;
- the presentation of the results should be improved, by better highlighting the significance of the results themselves.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The Authors have taken into account all my suggestions, hence in my opinion the manuscript can be accepted for publication in the present form.
