Optimal Control for Cleaner Hybrid Vehicles: A Backward Approach
, Alice Guille Des Buttes 1,2,†,‡, Alan Keromnes 2,§, Serge Pélissier 1 and Luis Le Moyne 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article titled “Optimal control for cleaner hybrid vehicles: a backward approach” addresses the trade-off between the efficiency of the pollution control systems and fuel consumption. The analysis is based on a backward model environment, cantered on a fuel injection engine in a hybrid architecture. Overall, I found the topic relevant, current, and interesting. The research methods are appropriate for the goal of the study, they are well explained, and the article is within the scope and aims of the journal.
I would like to make the following comments:
- The Introduction section is informative and easy-to-follow. I believe it would benefit from clearly stating what the unique contribution of the paper is (instead of just saying it is based on the PhD thesis of one of the authors, lines 77-78)
- Materials and Methods section is well structured, and I particularly appreciate the diagrams that provide a visual aid for understanding the data and the work process.
- In the Results section, I appreciate that limitations of the research are mentioned such as elements that were not in the scope of the paper (328-331) or computation restrictions (lines 351-354). However, the use of figures to explain the results seems to become excessive and it makes the findings more difficult to follow. For example: Figure 16 is mentioned on page 13, but is only available on page 15; is Figure 15 necessary? (I don’t believe it was mentioned in the text); is Figure 19 necessary since it is only mentioned, but not actually explained or referred to. I would strongly recommend reducing the number of figures in the Results section and including only what is highly relevant.
- Lines 462-498 are more suited to the Conclusions section than the Discussion section. The Discussion section needs to be improved. Perhaps by considering whether it would be more appropriate to place section 3.3 in the Discussion section with corresponding adjustments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting article providing excellent results. However, it still has some following problems needed to be addressed.
|
No. |
Line No. |
Comment |
|
1 |
1 |
The abstract should be able to stand alone, so please add the purpose of the research, the principal results, and major conclusions. |
|
2 |
1, 499 |
It is suggested that the claims for the significance of the paper should be added in the Abstract and Conclusions. |
|
3 |
77 |
Please state clearly the research question of this paper in “Introduction”. |
|
4 |
198 |
The principle of the mesh should be clarified. |
|
5 |
205 |
“2.5 Algorithm overview” could be an annex of this paper, a paragraph with a few sentences is enough in the main body of the paper. |
|
6 |
333 |
Some evidence or references should be added to support “…gearbox with 6, 7 even 8 gears in today’s vehicle. This improves greatly the…” |
|
7 |
524 |
The acronyms are not fully included, for example, PM, BC, SOE, etc. Please make sure all acronyms in the paper are included in this section. |
|
8 |
13,92,100,355 |
Some typos are needed to be corrected, for example, Line 13: “tendancy” should be “tendency”; Line 92: “pre-defined”; Line 100: “concluded”; Line 355, “The Table 6”, etc. |
Best regards,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors responded to all the issues the reviewer raised in the previous round. The reviewer now has no further comments.
