Design Research on Stator-Segmented Flux-Reversal Motor

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please view the attachment!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Professional English proofreading is required!

Author Response

Please view the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes a novel topology of a flux-reversal permanent magnet machine that combines a segmented stator, dual windings, and a double-sequence permanent magnet structure. However, the current manuscript exhibits significant deficiencies in quantitative analysis, comparative studies, the presentation of key performance indicators, and overall formatting/standardization. Please revise the manuscript by addressing the following comments:

1. The authors repeatedly emphasize in the abstract and introduction that the proposed design features higher power density and lower torque ripple compared to “traditional FRPM machines.” However, there are no comparative data or charts with a traditional machine in the main text. It is strongly recommended that the authors establish a traditional FRPM machine model with the same dimensions, copper volume, and permanent magnet volume as a benchmark, and provide detailed performance comparison charts.
2. As a paper on electric machine design, merely presenting the magnetic flux lines (Fig. 2), magnetic flux density distribution (Fig. 3), and no-load/load flux linkages (Figs. 4-7) is far from sufficient. The following key simulation results must be supplemented: torque characteristics, back-electromotive force, power, and efficiency.
3. The author names and article titles in the references are mixed up with content from different sources (e.g., “...motoHua Wei, Zhu Xiaofeng. Overview of...”). Please carefully check and correct these. Additionally, reference [13] is cited in the main text (Line 91, Pan Daisong et al.), but in the reference list at the end, the numbering jumps directly from [12] to [14], missing [13].
4. The paper provides the relationship equation between the number of rotor poles and the number of stator pole pairs (Eq. 9), but it does not specify the exact pole-slot combination of the designed machine (e.g., number of stator slots, rotor poles, and stator segments). It is recommended to add a detailed "Table of Main Parameters" listing key data such as outer diameter, stack length, air-gap length, permanent magnet volume, and number of turns.
5. Equation and typographical errors: i) In line 172, there is a typo in the explanation of Equation (7): “φsp is φthe stator pole flux density”, where there is an extra “φ”. ii) In line 213, “magnetomotive force (MMF)：” uses a full-width Chinese colon, and its placement as an independent paragraph is abrupt; please adjust the formatting. iii) The derivation process of Equation (14) is somewhat abrupt. It is recommended to add brief explanatory text or cite relevant literature.
6. The abstract and conclusion mention that the machine has a “lower maintenance cost.” Finite element simulations cannot directly prove a reduction in maintenance costs. It is recommended to revise this to “theoretically has a lower maintenance cost,” or to present it objectively as a potential engineering advantage of this topology, rather than as a conclusion drawn from simulations.

Author Response

Please view the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors propose a new (12 stator poles, 14 rotor teeth) three-phase permanent-magnet flux-reversal motor (PMFRM) topology containing (i) segmented stator (for higher winding fill factor and simplified manufacturing); (ii) two sets of stator-PMs, i.e. conventional segmental tooth-PMs and additional inter-segmental PMs circumferentially-placed in the stator yoke (for enhancing flux modulation, boosting electromagnetic torque density, reducing flux leakage, cancelling airgap flux-density harmonics, suppressing unbalanced magnetic pull); (iii) double three-phase winding  layout (for fault-tolerant operation and independent control of flux-enhancing/ weakening modes). However, this proposal of synergistic-stator PMFRM topology is only supported by 2D finite-element magnetic-field analysis results for airgap magnetic-flux distribution, back-emf waveforms of power and fault-tolerant stator-windings under no-load and full-load operation modes. There are no electromagnetic performance evaluation and comparative analysis between the proposed PMFRM and the conventional one, and no proof-of-principle prototype tests for the finite-element magnetic-field analysis validation. Hence, the actual content and form of the paper have to be substantially improved and completed by the authors in view of a future paper re-submission.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English writing of the paper has to be improved.

Author Response

Please view the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments and suggestions to authors have been reflected satisfactorily!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no further comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revised paper – in which the authors propose a new 12 stator poles, 14 rotor teeth three-phase permanent-magnet flux-reversal motor (PMFRM) topology containing (i) segmented stator; (ii) two sets of stator-PMs, i.e. conventional segmental tooth-PMs and additional inter-segmental PMs circumferentially-placed in the stator yoke; (iii) double three-phase winding  layout – provides the authors’ pertinent effort in responding to reviewer’s requests by substantially improving the paper technical content, and carrying out the electromagnetic performance evaluation and comparative 2D finite-element magnetic-field analysis between the proposed synergistic-stator PMFRM topology and the conventional one. Hence, there are no requests to be addressed to the authors.