Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is interesting, but it gives the impression that the presented results consisted of research carried out at different times or by various people. The text has not been properly checked for uniform descriptions.

 

The formal comments are:

69 line - this is the angular velocity, so rad/sec;

Figure 1, figure 6 - Use a wind turbine or just a turbine instead of a fan;

87 line eq. (3) - the differentiation operator is a lower case letter p, not a capital letter, but it is definitely better to write the differentiation operation as d/dt;

87 verse - no assumptions as to the winding resistance are presented;

line 89 eq (4) - the flux from permanent magnets has not been explained either;

verse 104, 108, 137, 144 - see the note (verse 87);

Figure 2 - parameter designation conflict in equation (11) B denotes viscous friction. Likewise, J as in eq. (11) denotes the moment of Inertia;

Figure 2 and 3 - and here the integration operator is 1/s. Please replace it with a mathematical integral symbol;

Figure 3 - no signs of signals coming to the summation node and no definition of the 3s/2r transformation;

Verse 152 - this is wrong or incomplete explanation;

Figure 5 - no definition of the 2r/2s transformation;

Figure 5 - there is no description of how the control loops and control quantities are switchable. In its present shape, the method of switching is highly questionable. This method causes transients, about which the authors do not write in the article.

Figure 5 - between the electronic converter and the PMSM, the connections have a power nature, not the signal connections as shown;

Figure 7 - The functions of some masked blocks are unreadable. They should be explained. Such a pattern is incomprehensible;

Figure 11 - instead of a motor it is better to use a PMSM machine;

Figures 11, 12, 13 - hard to interpret. What is the function of kinetic storage in its first 500 seconds of operation? The speed is practically constant, the kinetic storage should be charged, so why is so much torque needed? The PMSM machine should work only to cover losses. It seems that the working conditions were poorly defined. The machine is constantly loaded and operates at a rigid speed(torque) characteristic. There are no flywheel operating conditions. And where is the work where speed changes up to 1/2 maximal value?

Fig.13 - instead of enlarged there should be a word zoom and an indication of what time interval it concerns

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Reviewer 2 Report

I am recommending major revisions. The Introduction is very shallow. And there is no proof of adaptive controller given. 

1. From the title “Research on” may be deleted. The paper talks about Adaptive Control Strategy, but it is completely missing from the title. 

2. The Introduction is completely inadequate. A detailed review of adaptive control literature is required in the Introduction. Some examples are: 

    An augmented subcutaneous type 1 diabetic patient modelling and design of adaptive glucose control Journal of Process Control 86, 94-105 
    Adaptive backstepping control scheme with integral action for quanser 2-dof helicopter2017 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications 
    Solar panel simulation using adaptive control 2012 IEEE International Conference on Control Applications, 1124-1130 
    Adaptive failure compensation for coaxial rotor helicopter under propeller failure2012 American Control Conference (ACC), 2539-2544 

  This list is not comprehensive there should be 10-15 papers on Adaptive control that should be discussed because it is central to your work in Section 3. 

3. The most glaring flaw in this work is that the stability proof of adaptive controller is not provided. You need to complete it and show how it can be done in this case. Sufficient material is available in literature. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1. I still consider the Introduction to be inadequate even through the authors have reviewed some work on adaptive control in the field. However the Introduction Section is not comprehensive enough in terms of state of the art. I have already given some suggestions in this regard. 

2. Also, the authors are suggested to draw their own figures. In some cases the resolution does not seem to convey that the figures are made for this manuscript and not taken from other sources. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Since the authors have satisfactorily addressed all the comments, I have no further comments.