Robust Sensor Fault Detection for a Single-Phase Pulse Width Modulation Rectifier
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Line 37, please avoid using abbreviations (UIO, FDI) without spelling them out at their first appearance in the manuscript.
2. Line 62, there is no need to spell UIO out again.
3. The reviewer strongly recommends to rephrase line 45 to line 75, where existing works are reviewed. Please use your own language to highlight the main findings in these works instead of direct copy paste. Currently, the authors use too many expressions like “this method”, “this approach”, “the system”, which are confusing to readers. Moreover, some of the copied statements from the references are very similar and therefore should be avoided:
- Line 49: This approach has the potential to be applied in a variety of systems, from industrial control systems to automotive applications, where fault detection and isolation are critical for 50 ensuring system reliability and safety.
- Line 68: This approach has broad applications in various fields, from aerospace to industrial control systems, where fault detection and robustness are critical for maintaining system performance and safety.
- Line 74: By using this approach, the system can achieve higher levels of reliability and performance, which is crucial in applications where faults or failures can have significant consequences.
4. Please check line 91. It seems a ref is missing.
5. Please spell out PWM at its first appearance in the manuscript.
6. Please check line 96. It seems a ref is missing.
7. Line 104 to line 108, this is completely duplicate statement. Consider removing it.
8. Line 109 to line 121, if this is the original proposal, why not mention it earlier? But please avoid copy-paste duplicate statements.
9. Line 123 to line 134, please rephrase and incorporate properly into the manuscript instead of direct reference without logical justification.
10. Line 144 to line 146, this manuscript does not use roman numerals to number the “Section”.
11. Section 3:
- Please consider changing the title to “Experimental set-up”
- Move Figure 3 to Figure 6 to the next section
12. Section 4:
- Please consider changing the title to “Results and discussion”
- Please add more explanations on the shown figures, such as what each curve stands for
13. Some critical aspects are missing from the discussion part:
- There is no quantitative evaluation/assessment on the obtained results to demonstrate the effectiveness and accuracy of the proposed method
- What is the response time of the proposed method to an introduced fault?
- To demonstrate the novelty and advantage of the presented work over existing works, the authors need to make sufficient and clear comparisons on the critical factors of all the methods
- What is the computational cost of the proposed method? This can also be part of the comparison mentioned in the previous bullet.
14. It is recommendable to add a section stating the current limitations and potential improvement for the future works.
Some proofreading is required.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments:
- Line 37, please avoid using abbreviations (UIO, FDI) without spelling them out at their first appearance in the manuscript.
Response: you are right, It is corrected.
- Line 62, there is no need to spell UIO out again.
Response: yes, it is removed.
- The reviewer strongly recommends to rephrase line 45 to line 75, where existing works are reviewed.
Response: Rephrase done
- Please use your own language to highlight the main findings in these works instead of direct copy paste. Currently, the authors use too many expressions like “this method”, “this approach”, “the system”, which are confusing to readers. Moreover, some of the copied statements from the references are very similar and therefore should be avoided:
- Line 49: This approach has the potential to be applied in a variety of systems, from industrial control systems to automotive applications, where fault detection and isolation are critical for 50 ensuring system reliability and safety.
- Line 68: This approach has broad applications in various fields, from aerospace to industrial control systems, where fault detection and robustness are critical for maintaining system performance and safety.
- Line 74: By using this approach, the system can achieve higher levels of reliability and performance, which is crucial in applications where faults or failures can have significant consequences.
Response: you’re right. I rephrased the introduction part and considered all your suggestions. the similar statements have been removed.
- Please check line 91. It seems a ref is missing.
Response: you’re right. It has been corrected.
- Please spell out PWM at its first appearance in the manuscript.
Response: Done.
- Please check line 96. It seems a ref is missing.
Response: you’re right, It has been corrected.
- Line 104 to line 108, this is completely duplicate statement. Consider removing it.
Response: It is removed
- Line 109 to line 121, if this is the original proposal, why not mention it earlier? But please avoid copy-paste duplicate statements.
Response: It has been corrected
- Line 123 to line 134, please rephrase and incorporate properly into the manuscript instead of direct reference without logical justification.
Response: the paragraph has been rephrased and refences justified as your recommended.
- Line 144 to line 146, this manuscript does not use roman numerals to number the “Section”.
Response: you’re right, I corrected it
- Section 3:
- Please consider changing the title to “Experimental set-up”
- Move Figure 3 to Figure 6 to the next section
Response: It is done
- Section 4:
- Please consider changing the title to “Results and discussion”
- Please add more explanations on the shown figures, such as what each curve stands for
Response: you’re right, The title has been changed as per your suggestion and the results are more explained.
- Some critical aspects are missing from the discussion part:
- There is no quantitative evaluation/assessment on the obtained results to demonstrate the effectiveness and accuracy of the proposed method.
Response: We corrected this point in discussion and in conclusion sections
- What is the response time of the proposed method to an introduced fault?
Response: The response time is less than 1ms as it mentioned in the experimental results discussion section.
- To demonstrate the novelty and advantage of the presented work over existing works, the authors need to make sufficient and clear comparisons on the critical factors of all the methods
Response: we compared the UIO method with the commonly used fault detection methods to provide a clear comparison of critical factors in the introduction section as you suggested (Line 50 – line 80). In addition to the advantages presented by this method, the experiment results proved that this method is fast in term of fault detection with the response time less than 1ms. (Line 446 - line448)
- What is the computational cost of the proposed method? This can also be part of the comparison mentioned in the previous bullet.
Response: This method utilizes the difference between actual and estimated current to generate a residual for fault detection, without requiring any additional hardware. With only the measured current, DC-link voltage, and grid voltage available, this technique is cost-effective and easy to implement. (Line 456 - line 460)
- It is recommendable to add a section stating the current limitations and potential improvement for the future works.
Response: We added a paragraph in the end of the conclusion to showing the limitation and the future work (line 468 – line 485).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the article under review, the authors presented the results of their research and developments aimed at improving fault detection for a Single-Phase PWM rectifier. The studies were carried out by mathematical modeling and checked their results by practical study. In the main parts of the paper, a mathematical description of the proposed solutions is given, and the results of calculations and practical study are presented. The conclusions are given at the end of the paper. But some comments are noticed:
1. The introduction section must be improved. Namely, the problem statement and motivation should be comprehensively and precisely described.
2. It seems that the authors should more clearly formulate and present the study's scientific novelty.
3. The construction of this should be presented in the last section of the introduction section.
4. The results section should include comparisons with the results of the recently published work.
5. The conclusion section is very compact. More details should be included in this section.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments:
In the article under review, the authors presented the results of their research and developments aimed at improving fault detection for a Single-Phase PWM rectifier. The studies were carried out by mathematical modeling and checked their results by practical study. In the main parts of the paper, a mathematical description of the proposed solutions is given, and the results of calculations and practical study are presented. The conclusions are given at the end of the paper. But some comments are noticed:
- The introduction section must be improved. Namely, the problem statement and motivation should be comprehensively and precisely described.
Response: This section has been improved and the problem statement and motivation have been described in this section. (Line 23 - line 29)
- It seems that the authors should more clearly formulate and present the study's scientific novelty.
Response: The contribution of this paper has been clearly reformulated (Line 146 - line 159)
- The construction of this should be presented in the last section of the introduction section.
Response: We did it
- The results section should include comparisons with the results of the recently published work.
Response: You’re right, and some comparisons have been included.
- The conclusion section is very compact. More details should be included in this section.
Response: You’re right, and the correction has been made at that point
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper presents the development of a fault detection method that employs an unknown input observer with high sensitivity to faults and disturbance rejection to achieve robust fault detection. The experimental results show the performance of the developed methodology. Overall, this paper is well structured and some promising results are presented. Here are some suggestions for further improving the quality of this paper:
1) It is suggested to explain the relationship between observer-based fault detection and sensor detection.
2) This paper focuses on fault diagnosis. It is suggested to include relevant research works and explains the significance of the fault diagnosis in various applications, such as a novel gear fatigue monitoring indicator and its application to remaining useful life prediction for spur gear in intelligent manufacturing systems.
3) The parameters shown in this paper should be explained.
4) The quality of Fig. 3-5 should be improved.
5) There should be more discussions and explanations of the experimental results.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments:
This paper presents the development of a fault detection method that employs an unknown input observer with high sensitivity to faults and disturbance rejection to achieve robust fault detection. The experimental results show the performance of the developed methodology. Overall, this paper is well structured and some promising results are presented. Here are some suggestions for further improving the quality of this paper:
- It is suggested to explain the relationship between observer-based fault detection and sensor detection.
Response: The relationship has been included in the introduction section. (Line 44 - line 46)
- This paper focuses on fault diagnosis. It is suggested to include relevant research works and explains the significance of the fault diagnosis in various applications, such as a novel gear fatigue monitoring indicator and its application to remaining useful life prediction for spur gear in intelligent manufacturing systems.
Response: The paragraph on fault diagnosis research works has been included (Line 30 - line49)
- The parameters shown in this paper should be explained.
Response: Sure. The explanation is reported in table 1
- The quality of Fig. 3-5 should be improved.
Response: You’re right, and the correction has been made at that point
- There should be more discussions and explanations of the experimental results.
Response: You’re right, and the experiment results have been more discussed and explained
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for considering the comments and address them in the updated manuscript. The improvements are to the satisfaction of the reviewer.
Some proofreading is required.
Reviewer 2 Report
the article in this version can be accepted.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper has been improved by addressing the comments from reviewers. I agree to accept it.
