-->PONE-D-24-59867-->-->Study on optimization control of rescue hoist vehicle safety performance based on state feedback: A research on the XZJ5240JQZ30 All-Terrain Rescue Lift Vehicle-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tian,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 20 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Lei Zhang, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

Additional Editor Comments:

This study is generally well prepared, but there are still some places that need further revisions or clarifications.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: 1. The images in the text did not display properly. Please ensure that there are no formatting errors in the final submitted version

Table 1 should have 3 columns, each column consisting of parameter name, parameter meaning, and parameter value

In the "Steering control system optimization design", a Linear 2-degree-of-freedom model was adopted, which means that this article only considers sideslip and yaw at the theoretical level, without considering roll and pitch. But the rollover caused by vehicle roll is also a serious problem. Is the dynamic model used in this article reasonable?

4. It is recommended to conduct tests under classic serpentine and hook conditions to verify the effectiveness of the proposed method in this paper

5. For experimental results, in addition to visualized curves, it is recommended to provide quantifiable indicator results.

Why is PID used as the optimization controller in the article, and what are the advantages of this method compared to other methods?

7. This article uses existing dynamic models and control methods, and the innovation of this article is not clear enough

8. The Introduction section lacks a comprehensive summary of existing research. It is recommended to cite "A review on reinforcement learning based highway autonomous vehicle control" and "Longitudinal and lateral control methods from single vehicle to autonomous platform"

Reviewer #2: The manuscript investigates the steering stability of the XZJ5240JQZ30 all-terrain rescue lift vehicle under Double Line Change conditions. It develops a state-feedback PID optimization control system based on a two-degree-of-freedom vehicle model to enhance the vehicle's stability during steering maneuvers. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed control system effectively improves the vehicle's stability and steering performance at both high and low speeds.

Below are my comments and suggestions.

1. Methodological aspects

1) Model Assumptions: The linear two-degree-of-freedom (2DOF) model is used for vehicle stability analysis. While this model is a good starting point, it may not fully capture the complex dynamics of a heavy rescue vehicle, especially under extreme conditions. Suggestion: Consider incorporating a more sophisticated model, such as a nonlinear model or a 3DOF model, to better represent the vehicle's behavior under various steering and speed scenarios.

2) Parameter Identification: The paper does not detail how the parameters for the mathematical models were identified or validated. Suggestion: Include a section on parameter identification, describing the methods used to determine the values of key parameters like suspension stiffness and damping coefficients. This could involve experimental data fitting or sensitivity analysis to ensure the model's accuracy.

3) Simulation Validation: The study relies heavily on simulations, but there is limited discussion on how these simulations were validated against real-world data. Suggestion: Conduct experimental tests with the actual XZJ5240JQZ30 vehicle or similar models to validate the simulation results. This would enhance the credibility of the findings and demonstrate the practical applicability of the proposed control system.

2. Technical aspects

1) Control System Design: The PID control system is used for optimization, but the choice of PID gains (P=8, I=5, D=1) seems arbitrary. Suggestion: Explain the process of tuning these gains, possibly using a systematic approach like Ziegler-Nichols method or model-based optimization techniques. This would provide a rationale for the chosen values and ensure optimal performance.

2) Handling of Nonlinearities: The control system may face challenges in handling the nonlinearities inherent in vehicle dynamics, such as tire force saturation or suspension nonlinearities. Suggestion: Explore the use of advanced control techniques like sliding mode control or model predictive control, which are better suited for nonlinear systems. These methods can provide robustness and improved performance under varying conditions.

3) Real-time Implementation: The study focuses on simulation results, but there is no discussion on the real-time implementation of the control system. Suggestion: Address the computational requirements and feasibility of implementing the control algorithm in real-time on the vehicle's onboard systems. Consider factors like processing power, response time, and sensor data availability.

4) Robustness to Disturbances: The impact of external disturbances, such as road irregularities or wind gusts, on the vehicle's stability is not explicitly considered. Suggestion: Incorporate disturbance rejection techniques in the control system design, such as using disturbance observers or robust control strategies, to ensure stability and performance in the presence of real-world uncertainties.

Below are my comments and suggestions to improve the writing and presentation of the manuscript.

1. Title and Abstract

Title: The title is quite lengthy. Consider simplifying it to highlight the core content and innovation of the study. For example, change "Study on optimization control of rescue hoist vehicle safety performance based on state feedback: A research on the XZJ5240JQZ30 All-Terrain Rescue Lift Vehicle" to "Optimization Control of All-Terrain Rescue Lift Vehicle Safety Performance Based on State Feedback".

Abstract: The abstract lacks a brief description of the research methods. It is suggested to add a sentence about how the 2DOF vehicle model and state-feedback PID optimization control system were established.

2. Introduction

Background Context: The introduction could benefit from a clearer linkage between the background information and the specific objectives of this study. Consider adding a paragraph that explicitly states how the existing challenges in rescue vehicle performance motivated this research.

Literature Review: While several studies are cited, there is room for a more comprehensive review. Include a broader range of relevant literature to establish the gap your study aims to fill. For instance, discuss more extensively how previous research has addressed the stability and steering control of heavy vehicles in off-road conditions.

3. Methodology

Mathematical Models: The mathematical models and equations are central to the study. Ensure that all symbols and variables are clearly defined and consistently used throughout the text. Consider providing a table summarizing the key parameters and their units for easy reference.

Simulation Setup: The description of the simulation experiments could be more detailed. Specify the exact parameters and conditions used in the TruckSim and Simulink simulations, such as the exact specifications of the road surface and environmental conditions. This will enhance the reproducibility of the study.

4. Results

Data Presentation: While the results are presented, they could be more effectively visualized. Consider using additional graphs or charts to compare the performance metrics of the 4WS and FWS systems more clearly. For example, a side-by-side comparison of yaw rate and lateral offset for both systems at different speeds would be helpful.

Statistical Analysis: Include statistical analysis to quantify the significance of the differences observed between the 4WS and FWS systems. This will strengthen the validity of your findings.

5. Discussion

Interpretation of Results: The discussion section should more thoroughly interpret the results in the context of the research objectives. Explain how the findings contribute to the understanding of rescue vehicle stability and steering control, and how they can be applied in practical scenarios.

Limitations: Address the limitations of the study more explicitly. Discuss any assumptions made in the model or simulations that might affect the results, and suggest areas for future research to address these limitations.

6. Conclusion

Summary of Findings: The conclusion should succinctly summarize the key findings and their implications. Clearly state how the state-feedback PID optimization control system enhances the stability of the rescue lift vehicle.

Future Work: Suggest potential directions for future research. For example, consider how the control system could be adapted for different types of rescue vehicles or tested under more varied environmental conditions.

7. Writing and Language

Clarity and Conciseness: Some sections contain lengthy sentences that could be broken down for clarity. Aim for concise and straightforward language to improve readability.

Technical Jargon: Ensure that technical terms and jargon are explained or defined for readers who may not be experts in the field. This will make the paper more accessible to a broader audience.

8. Figures and Tables

Figure Quality: Ensure that all figures are of high quality and clearly labeled. The captions should provide sufficient information to understand the figures without referring to the text.

Table Organization: If tables are used, ensure they are well-organized and easy to read. Use consistent formatting and include clear headings and units.

By addressing these comments and suggestions, the manuscript can be strengthened and made more suitable for publication.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Optimization control of all-terrain rescue lift vehicle safety performance based on state feedback

PONE-D-24-59867R1

Dear Dr. Tian,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Lei Zhang, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The revised version has addressed all ther raised comments, and thus can be accepted for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The article adopts a linear 2-degree-of-freedom (2DOF) model, which only considers yaw and sideslip, ignoring roll and pitch dynamics. For heavy rescue vehicles, roll stability is equally critical (such as rollover risk). It is recommended to supplement the analysis with a 3-degree-of-freedom model or a nonlinear model, or clarify the limitations of this model in the discussion section.

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********