On the Development and Experimental Validation of a Novel and Intuitive Interior Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor Controller for Electric Vehicle Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper describes the control strategy developed by the authors for a permanent magnet synchronous motor. The proposed control strategy is based on a correction of the reference values of the field-oriented control system. This correction is performed on a look up table, which was defined by simulation studies. Unfortunately, the interesting idea is difficult to understand by the reader due to the very poor technical quality of the paper. So, please correct the paper technically and follow the format that is defined for this journal.

The organization of the paper is unclear. Some of the information in Section 2.2 should be moved to the introduction section.

The proposed strategy is based on the current and efficiency tables determined during modeling. How will such a system respond when changes in machine parameters occur due to aging processes or external changes?

The article is a confusing mess with wrong labels of figure captions and references in the text, e.g., Figure 2 -> Figure 4 (page 7 of 22); Figure 3-> Figure 4 (page 8 of 22), etc.

Mistake: Line 27 page 8 wrong figure number.

As it stands, the quality of the work is poor. You have to guess which figures and formulas the authors are referring to.

Also, make an analysis comparing the developed controller with other known control methods described in literature.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the reviews and comments.

We have addressed all of the comments in the attached documents, titled as

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article discusses the implementation of an internal permanent magnet motor torque control algorithm for an electric vehicle in a wide speed range. Although the problem to be solved is certainly important, the novelty of the proposed solution is not clear:

1) The authors write: “The problem is mostly observed in cheap controllers in the market while high-end ones with higher prices usually employ some other sophisticated algorithms such as crawling or hill assist modes which are also characterized by drawbacks in their current and speed limiter.”

Please give some specific examples of the "cheap" and "high-end" controllers. How does the cost of a controller depend on the control algorithm?

2) I was surprised that in the introduction of this article there is not a single reference to a scientific paper.  Usually, most of the introduction is an overview of the latest literature on the subject under consideration. Similar solutions are analyzed. Based on the literature overview, the problems to be solved and the scientific novelty of the article are formulated.

3) The authors write: “The problem is mostly observed in cheap controllers in the market while high-end ones with higher prices usually employ some other sophisticated algorithms such as crawling or hill assist modes which are also characterized by drawbacks in their current and speed limiter. It was discovered that the controller normally shuts down once these algorithms are hit. This means the performance of the controller under such conditions is dangerous and sometimes leads to catastrophic failure due to its inability to control electric vehicles or motorcycles. An example of this is when an electric vehicle or motorcycle ascends a steep inclination”

I don't think the problem is a scientific one. This problem has long been solved for traction IPMSMs and has been discussed in scientific journal articles. Therefore, the scientific novelty of this article is not clear.

Using lookup tables in an IPMSM controller is not a novel solution. See for example: doi.org/10.3390/electronics8091052

Author Response

Thanks for the comments.

We have addressed and included all of the reviewer concerns as in the attached documents.

Best wishes

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has been sufficiently improved on the technical aspect.  Unfortunately, I still have doubts about the content presented.

1. I am not convinced of the motivation of the paper. Indicate clearly the elements of novelty that demonstrate the scientific nature of the work. What are the specific new things the authors have achieved?

2. There are still linguistic errors in the paper. Please read carefully and correct the errors.

3. The responses to the previous review are laconic, but sufficient. Unfortunately, there are no highlighted changes in the revised version of the paper that address the reviewers' comments. This forces the reader to read the new version and compare it with the previous one. Therefore, mark, e.g. in color the changed parts of the text.

4. On which hardware platform is the controller implemented?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are really sorry. I missed to send reviewer comments file in the first round.

Sincerely, please accept my apology. It was my bad.

Please find enclosed our reviewer comments file round 2.

Best wishes,

Nur

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the authors satisfactorily responded to the comments of the reviewer. I believe the article does not really introduce scientific novelty, but contains an interesting example of the implementation of an electric drive in a practically significant application.

However, it would be instructive if the authors also explained in more detail the factors that did not allow obtaining a drive with the targeted constant power speed (CPSR): in Fig. 19, the experimental characteristic is much lower than the theoretical one. How should the drive be modified to obtain the required output power of 20 kW in the speed range from 2000 to 6000 rpm?

I think, after adding such an analysis, this article can be accepted for publication in the Journal.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please find enclosed our reviewer comments file round 2.

Best wishes,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx