Review Reports - Adaptive Fuzzy Control of an Electronic Differential Based on the Stability Criterion of the Phase Plane Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are some comments as follows: -

Q1) Please; where is Figure 11. serpentine condition test diagram.

Q2) Please; update the references list until 2024.

Q3) what is the type and modelling of the used electric motor in this vehicle. ( dc motor or Ac motor)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work presented in the manuscript “Research on adaptive fuzzy control of electronic differential based on stability criterion of phase plane method” proposes a method for implementing an electronic differential control strategy based on the phase plane method. It is based on an adaptive fuzzy controller to achieve a suitable control scheme considering the operating parameters. The system dynamically adjusts factors such as quantization and scale to determine the necessary yaw moment. In developing the strategy, the authors consider the influence of various factors on vehicle stability including vehicle speed, pavement adhesion coefficient and front wheel angle.

The paper is well written, and the method is clearly explained. The introduction provides a good description of the problem followed by a brief presentation of state-of-the-art in the field. The validation of the method uses a MATLAB/Simulink simulation. It considers three different scenarios such as J-turn, sinusoidal stagnation, and serpentine driving route. The conclusions clearly describe the contribution of the work. However, in my opinion there are some parts that need attention or improvements, as follows.

1. Further details are needed on [332] “Through the analysis of vehicle dynamic stability and reference to a large number of documents, 𝐶a = 4.386, 𝐶b = 2.562.” It is unclear the influence of these values and how they were selected.

2. A bit confusing definition of the fuzzy sets appears in [352-353], where there are two values denoted as “negative large” and two values as “positive large”, respectively.

3. More detailed related work discussion is necessary, especially in conjunction with the proposed method.

4. Comparison with other SoA methods is missing in the validation section.

5. The limitations and potential weaknesses of the presented method should be discussed.

6. A validation scenario to test harsh conditions can be a plus. E.g., a serpentine drive path with a changed road adhesion coefficient due to some puddle on the pavement.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English quality is good. Some typos exist at [138], [159], [231], and [446].

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper explores an electronic differential control strategy for distributed drive electric vehicles using the phase plane method. This approach analyzes the vehicle's stability by plotting the vehicle center of mass side angle and angular speed on a phase plane, followed by employing an adaptive fuzzy control strategy to optimize torque distribution to enhance vehicle stability. The effectiveness of this strategy is validated using a joint simulation platform with MATLAB/Simulink and CarSim, demonstrating superior stability over traditional methods.

Generally speaking, the paper can be accepted after some revisions. Here are some review comments.

- The paper claims superior performance over traditional electronic differential strategies. Can you provide more details on the comparative analysis metrics used and the specific conditions under which these metrics were evaluated? This would help in understanding the scalability and real-world applicability of the proposed strategy.

- The adaptive fuzzy control strategy is central to your approach. How robust is this strategy against variations in environmental conditions such as road surface changes or weather conditions? Is there any mechanism to adapt the control parameters in real-time based on sensory feedback?

- Regarding the simulation results presented, could the authors specify the range of initial conditions for the simulations? Understanding the boundary conditions and assumptions made in the simulations is crucial for evaluating the generalizability of the results.

- The abstract could be slightly restructured to first mention the problem statement and then describe the proposed solution and its benefits. This would improve the flow and readability of the abstract.

- Some references appear to be inconsistently formatted or incomplete (e.g., missing authors or publication years). Consistent and complete citation formatting would enhance the credibility and professionalism of the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required. Please correct the presentation and format problems.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript is an improvement over the original. The authors succeeded in increasing the clarity of the proposed method presentation and they also solved most of the issues pointed out in the comments. Some useful information was added to the concluding section, especial related with problems remaining to be solved in future work. In my opinion, the new version of the manuscript meets the necessary standards to be considered for publication.