Estimating APC Model Parameters for Dynamic Intervals Determined Using Change-Point Detection in Continuous Processes in the Petrochemical Industry
, Minyeob Lee 1,2, Chaekyu Lee 1, Yewon Cheon 3, Seungyun Baek 4, Youngmin Kim 4, Kyungmin Kim 4, Heechan Jung 5, Dohyeon Lim 6, Hyogeun Byun 7 and Jongpil Jeong 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The first few sentences of the abstract are exactly the same as the beginning of introduction.
2. All the figures are not clear, the font size and format of the pictures are not uniform, and the colors are confused.
3. The formula format of the article is out of order, resulting in an incomplete formula
4. The composition of the article is confused, and there are many blank parts
5. There is no time comparison. Will the prediction error continue to increase with the addition of time series data?
6. Many figures coordinate have no units, is it dimensionless?
7. Can all analytical predictions be integrated into one system?
Author Response
1.Reviewer #1
Thank you for reviewing your manuscript, "APC model parameter estimation for dynamic intervals determined using change point detection in a petrochemical continuous process" (Manuscript ID: processes-2476118).
We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. In addition, the revised manuscript has been edited by Editage (https://www.eworldediting.com/). Editage was established in 2002 to support high-quality editing services for domestic authors. It is a highly regarded and growing English-language paper review and editing center.
For the paper review, I divided each point and made corrections and comments.
"Please see the attached for your review and comment." Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The reference numbers are disordered and language consistency should be ensured.
2. Various past studies have been examined, but there is no clear description of where the problems of those studies lie. Nor is it clearly explained what approach the research took to solve the problem, or whether the problem still exists.
3. The numbers in Tables 4, 5, 10, and 11 are garbled.
4. Figure 5 is not clear, and I recommend revising the clarity of other images as well. Please avoid using screenshots.
5. Rewrite equation (2)，(4)，(9) and (10).
6. The introduction lacks breadth of perspective. Literature 2 (https://doi.org/10.1177/14680874221084052) describes the fuel injection characteristics of engine speed controller using a PID controller. Literature 3 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.127064) conducted relevant experiments using this controller.
7. In the last paragraph of the Introduction, the authors should clearly mention the weakness point of former works (identification of the gaps) and describe the novelties of the current investigation to justify that the paper deserves to be published in this journal.
8. The abstract should explain why this work should be done and for what reason.
9. The conclusions section should be enhanced to some extent. In its current form, it mainly contains a synopsis of the work conducted. The authors should clearly cite the challenges they met during its implementation as well as recommendations for future research.
Author Response
1.Reviewer #2
Thank you for reviewing your manuscript, "APC model parameter estimation for dynamic intervals determined using change point detection in a petrochemical continuous process" (Manuscript ID: processes-2476118).
We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. In addition, the revised manuscript has been edited by Editage (https://www.eworldediting.com/). Editage was established in 2002 to support high-quality editing services for domestic authors. It is a highly regarded and growing English-language paper review and editing center.
For the paper review, I divided each point and made corrections and comments.
"Please see the attached for your review and comment." Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Line 45: Where is the reference to APC? APC should be explained in more details and some references should be given. It's the first time I hear about it.
2. Line 52: KI, not K1. Please, correct it all over the text!
3. Equation 1: It is not usual that controller transfer function is labeled as G(s). Consider using G_C(s).
4. Equation 3: Equation (1) is G(s) and describes the PID controller. You should use another nomenclature, e.g. G_APC(s)? You can also rename controller (1) transfer function, as suggested in comment 3.
5. Equation 4: Variable x is not defined! Also carefully explain all the variables in Figure 2.
6. Lines 81-123: Not easy to understand entire section.
7. Line 88: What exactly does "maintenance" means in model parameter maintenance? Consider using word adjustments, instead.
8. Line 98: Usually, in the literature it is called process value/variable (PV).
9. Line 99: What is DV?
10. Line102: Can you give some references for CPD?
11. Line 120: Can you elaborate why petrochemical process data can significantly differ from some other process industry data? In fact, why the data used in the paper is significantly different from the data used in other industries?
12. Figure 3: 6 different colours are present in the Figure 3, but only 5 are on the legend. Correct it, accordingly!
13. Line 146: I cannot understand anything said in point (3). Please, elaborate it in more details.
14. Equation 5: What is arsmin? Arguments minimum?
15. Line 178: Could you provide Matlab code so that any person can check the algorithm working. Building it from the instructions on pages 6 and 7 is almost impossible or would take a lot of effort and time.
16. Line 251: Should be number 1 subscripted in slope theta1?
17. Equation 10: If I understood correctly, the proposed algorithm identifies the first-order process model with time delay using Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm? Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm is used for nonlinear least squares. Have you compared it to least-squares with instrumental variables, instead?
The paper should be rewritten along with the proposed suggestions. The problem is also that it is so general that it cannot be verified without the provided Matlab files.
Author Response
1.Reviewer #3
Thank you for reviewing your manuscript, "APC model parameter estimation for dynamic intervals determined using change point detection in a petrochemical continuous process" (Manuscript ID: processes-2476118).
We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. In addition, the revised manuscript has been edited by Editage (https://www.eworldediting.com/). Editage was established in 2002 to support high-quality editing services for domestic authors. It is a highly regarded and growing English-language paper review and editing center.
For the paper review, I divided each point and made corrections and comments.
"Please see the attached for your review and comment." Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper has been improved upon the reviewer's comments.
Author Response
Reviewer #1
Thank you for reviewing your manuscript, "APC model parameter estimation for dynamic intervals determined using change point detection in a petrochemical continuous process" (Manuscript ID: processes-2476118).
We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. In addition, the revised manuscript has been edited by Editage (https://www.eworldediting.com/). Editage was established in 2002 to support high-quality editing services for domestic authors. It is a highly regarded and growing English-language paper review and editing center.
For the paper review, I divided each point and made corrections and comments.
We have revised the paper as requested by another reviewer. We appreciate the opportunity to submit a more complete paper to the reviewer.
"Please see the attached for your review and comment." Thank you.
Reviewer 2 Report
accept
Author Response
Reviewer #2
Thank you for reviewing your manuscript, "APC model parameter estimation for dynamic intervals determined using change point detection in a petrochemical continuous process" (Manuscript ID: processes-2476118).
We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. In addition, the revised manuscript has been edited by Editage (https://www.eworldediting.com/). Editage was established in 2002 to support high-quality editing services for domestic authors. It is a highly regarded and growing English-language paper review and editing center.
For the paper review, I divided each point and made corrections and comments.
We have revised the paper as requested by another reviewer. We appreciate the opportunity to submit a more complete paper to the reviewer.
"Please see the attached for your review and comment." Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
As for the authors' response to the reviewer, here are my comments:
1. As for the English language, the problem was mainly in the English sentences, which can mean something else if the words are not chosen correctly. No "Editage" or similar company can correct it properly if the editor has no knowledge of control engineering. Just as an example, one of your next sentences in your response to the reviewer, "... and feedforward control, which considers the influence of external disturbance variables in advance and controls before the external influence," it is poorly written and difficult to understand for a control enginner fluent in English. Did you mean "...and feedforward control, which compensates the external disturbances in advance"?
1.2. The authors have confirmed that they have fixed the errors. However, they still have not fixed them. I mentioned that they should correct the entire text. That is, in the whole manuscript. I found it again in expression (2). I suspect it still appears in some other equations and figures.
1.2. It was written, "...steady-state error is not the goal of integral term." Write instead, "...and the steady-state error is eliminated.". "Fine control" is not the right term in this context. Better: "Since the output changes are gradual, the rise time..."
1.4. Now I understand where the problem is. Be careful, in this context GAPC is not the controller! It is the process model (system model). Therefore, it would be more appropriate to call it GM and not GAPC (since GAPC would be associated with a controller transfer function, which it is not).
1.5. The authors use the term "movement size". This is the first time I have seen such a term. Just leave it out and just write "manipulated variable" or "controlled variable". However, as I mentioned before and in a comment below, I prefer "process value".
There is another very important concern. Note that manipulated variable and controlled variable (or process value!) are the same thing, and describe the process output that is under control. If you want to mention the process input, it is manipulative variable (or control variable). Please correct all terms accordingly.
1.6. The sentence "...which can be negatively affected by engineer skill" is not written correctly in English. It has no meaning. Please correct it.
Also, there are many words stuck together in your answers. For example, platsA, thisstudy, modifiedthe, variableand, purposeof, etc. Is it a problem with the keyboard, conversion to pdf or something else?
1.8. Your answer was that "...the general literature uses process value/variable (PV)". Therefore I assume that you agree with me? So why are you using "controlled variables (CV)" again instead of process value (PV)? This is not OK.
1.9. The sentence "However, since the purpose of this paper is to obtain the APC modelparameters of the disturbance variable for the controlled variable in the APC system..." is not clear. Model parameters of the disturbance variable for the controlled variable? Not clear at all. Can you explain?
Another comment: the manuscript did not mention that all disturbances should be measured if we need them to calculate the model. Note that disturbances are generally not measured or available!
The sentences should be improved. The problem is that many sentences could not be understood or have no meaning.
Author Response
Reviewer #3
Thank you for reviewing your manuscript, "APC model parameter estimation for dynamic intervals determined using change point detection in a petrochemical continuous process" (Manuscript ID: processes-2476118).
We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. In addition, the revised manuscript has been edited by Editage (https://www.eworldediting.com/). Editage was established in 2002 to support high-quality editing services for domestic authors. It is a highly regarded and growing English-language paper review and editing center.
For the paper review, I divided each point and made corrections and comments.
Thank you for the 2nd revision and submission to the reviewer. We appreciate the opportunity to submit a more complete paper to the reviewer.
"Please see the attached for your review and comment." Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors did respond properly to my questions/remarks.
English might be improved slightly.
