Thermal Mapping and Heat Transfer Analysis of an Induction Motor of an Electric Vehicle Using Nanofluids as a Cooling Medium

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper’s topic is interesting, but there are many comments that need to be applied.

1.       The literature review is too limited, the authors need to have vast background studies, some of the recent relevant studies are addressed for the authors deeper review to generally include background studies and narrowing to the specific topic.

 

·       Chen, Y. (2022). Research on collaborative innovation of key common technologies in new energy vehicle industry based on digital twin technology. Energy Reports, 8, 15399-15407. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.11.120

·       Huang, N., He, Q., Qi, J., Hu, Q., Wang, R., Cai, G.,... Yang, D. (2022). Multinodes interval electric vehicle day-ahead charging load forecasting based on joint adversarial generation. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 143, 108404. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2022.108404

·       Wu, Z.N. and L. Lin, Nanofluidics for single-cell analysis. CHINESE CHEMICAL LETTERS, 2022. 33(4): p. 1752-1756.

·       Yang, J.B. and Y. Xu, Nanofluidics for sub-single cellular studies: Nascent progress, critical technologies, and future perspectives. CHINESE CHEMICAL LETTERS, 2022. 33(6): p. 2799-2806.

·       Yao, Z., & Yoon, H. (2019). Control Strategy for Hybrid Electric Vehicle Based on Online Driving Pattern Classification. SAE International Journal of Alternative Powertrains, 8(2), 91-102. doi: https://doi.org/10.4271/08-08-02-0006

·       Min, H., Fang, Y., Wu, X., Lei, X., Chen, S., Teixeira, R.,... Zhao, X. (2023). A Fault Diagnosis Framework for Autonomous Vehicles with Sensor Self-Diagnosis. Expert Systems with Applications, 120002. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120002

·       Jiang, S., Zhao, C., Zhu, Y., Wang, C., Du, Y., Lei, W.,... Wang, L. (2022). A Practical and Economical Ultra-wideband Base Station Placement Approach for Indoor Autonomous Driving Systems. Journal of advanced transportation, 2022, 1-12. doi: 10.1155/2022/3815306

 

2.       Is the figure one illustrated by the Authors? If not, should be cited appropriately.

3.       The authors should clearly elaborate how their manuscript claims the technique for cooling the motor by nanofluids outperforms existing features? To what extent this manuscript contributes in the field?

4.       Figures 15 and 16 are very poor in quality, the axes, text and labels should be all modified.

5.       The conlcusion section is too lenghty, the authors should densify with explaing the ultimate findings.

 

 

6.       Authors should carefully address all comments in their revision work without overlooking. 

no comment 

Author Response

Dear Editor/Reviewer

The authors are delighted to address the comments given by the respected reviewer. The authors appreciate his efforts in bringing further fine-tuning to the manuscript. The authors are confident that the modified manuscript will surely attract many readers. The authors look forward to a positive outcome of this effort. Finally, the authors are indebted to the Editor/Reviewer and the entire team for all their sincere and tireless efforts and coordination.

Reviewer-1

This paper’s topic is interesting, but there are many comments that need to be applied.

Q1.       The literature review is too limited, the authors need to have vast background studies, some of the recent relevant studies are addressed for the author's deeper review to generally include background studies and narrowing to the specific topic.

• Chen, Y. (2022). Research on collaborative innovation of key common technologies in the new energy vehicle industry based on digital twin technology. Energy Reports, 8, 15399-15407. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.11.120
• Mezani, S., Takorabet, N., & Laporte, B. (2005). A combined electromagnetic and thermal analysis of induction motors. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 41(5), 1572-1575. DOI: 10.1109/TMAG.2005.845044.
• Lyu, Y., Siddique, A. R. M., Majid, S. H., Biglarbegian, M., Gadsden, S. A., & Mahmud, S. (2019). Electric vehicle battery thermal management system with thermoelectric cooling. Energy Reports, 5, 822-827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.06.016
• Yao, Z., & Yoon, H. (2019). Control Strategy for Hybrid Electric Vehicle Based on Online Driving Pattern Classification. SAE International Journal of Alternative Powertrains, 8(2), 91-102. doi: https://doi.org/10.4271/08-08-02-0006

Response: We thank the reviewer for his observations and suggestions. Relevant industry-based papers are included in the appropriate sections along with a few of the references suggested.

Q2.       Is figure one illustrated by the Authors? If not, should be cited appropriately.

Response: Thank the reviewer for pointing out this mistake. So, figure 1 is a modified image from one of the author’s papers and for the same, a reference has been cited.

Q3.       The authors should clearly elaborate on how their manuscript claims the technique for cooling the motor by nanofluids outperforms existing features. To what extent this manuscript contributes to the field?

Response: The reviewer is appreciated for commenting on this. Actually, our paper results show that there is a 10% reduction in the temperature of the housing (front) of the motor when the CuO nanofluid is used. Since it shows the maximum reduction when the CuO-based nanofluid is used as a coolant thereby making this technique, a better technique when it comes to cooling the electric motor and therefore outperforming the existing cooling schemes in the current industry (such as air cooling or water cooling). The authors have clearly given the results figures to show that there was a significant decrease in the temperature of the motor parts when we compare the nanofluids cooling scheme with the water-based cooling scheme. And this is highlighted in the results and discussion section in blue.

And about the manuscript contribution, we again thank you for letting us know. Further, we have discussed at the end of the paper, in what ways our research will help the environment and how the use of nanofluids can provide several practical benefits to the industry. This is added before the conclusion section.

Q4.       Figures 15 and 16 are very poor in quality, the axes, text, and labels should be all modified.

Response: We have attached the better-quality figures for figures 15 and 16. All in all, the details in the image have been enhanced.

Q5.       The conclusion section is too lengthy, the authors should densify with explaining the ultimate findings.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. However, we have made the conclusions crisp and clear in response to the kind suggestion given by the reviewer. Therefore, finally mentioned the major areas where the motor parts show a significant decrease in the temperature and later put why CuO-based nanofluids are best among the three nanofluids which were considered.

6. Authors should carefully address all comments in their revision work without overlooking. 

Response: The keen observation by the reviewer of our paper is appreciated. We have given our best to address the shortcomings that occur during the peer review of the manuscript. We have now made ample of changes to our manuscript as commented by the reviewers. Hence, we have mentioned proper attention during these revised changes.

Reviewer 2 Report

Interest in the use of nanofluids to improve heat transfer processes as one of among ways that might be applied. This article still contains a lot of writing errors, both in terms of punctuation and the correct way of citation. To improve the quality of this article, the following should be corrected:

1.      This research uses software without validating the results obtained. Likewise, the numerical methods and approaches chosen in the simulation calculations are not clear. In software of engineering tools, there is an approach so that the results are not guaranteed to be correct. Fatal errors can occur due to user errors and the limitations of the software itself.

 

1.     The concluding section, the content is shorter and denser as the main results and answers to the objectives of the research conducted.

1.       More detail comments can be seen in the attached draft.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

1.    All figures, tables, and equations must be explained in the text of the article.

2.    Figures and tables can be appeared after first referring to the narration of the previous paragraph.

3.    Referrals to the bibliography must be sequentially ordered and may not jump. Slide library no. 23 becomes 13 and change the other numbering. Improve this case in row 101.

4.      Use proper writing style--> replace E by 10 and superscript for the power for value in Table 1.

5.       Write more scientific writing style such as, don’t beginning word “and” as initial of the sentence.

6.       Acronyms that appear in the text must first be introduced before being used in subsequent sentences.

7.       The concluding section, the content is shorter and denser as the main results and answers to the objectives of the research conducted.

8.       More detail comments can be seen in the attached draft.

Author Response

Dear Editor/Reviewer

The authors are delighted to address the comments given by the respected reviewer. The authors appreciate his efforts in bringing further fine-tuning to the manuscript. The authors are confident that the modified manuscript will surely attract many readers. The authors look forward to a positive outcome of this effort. Finally, the authors are indebted to the Editor/Reviewer and the entire team for all their sincere and tireless efforts and coordination.

Reviewer

Interest in the use of nanofluids to improve heat transfer processes is one of among ways that might be applied. This article still contains a lot of writing errors, both in terms of punctuation and the correct way of citation. To improve the quality of this article, the following should be corrected:

Q1.      This research uses software without validating the results obtained. Likewise, the numerical methods and approaches chosen in the simulation calculations are not clear. In software of engineering tools, there is an approach so that the results are not guaranteed to be correct. Fatal errors can occur due to user errors and the limitations of the software itself.

Response: We are extremely sorry for this negligence from our side. We really appreciate this comment which was an eye-opener for us. The authors have now added comparison table 7 which shows the percent decrease in the temperature when water was chosen as the cooling medium. The above-said results are already furbished in Nikita et. al. [20] research. Hence the authors have now obtained validity in producing the results after following the numerical method approach of the software ANSYS Motor-CAD. These changes are highlighted in the results and discussion section in blue.

Q2.     The concluding section, the content is shorter and denser as the main results and answers to the objectives of the research conducted.

Response: Thank you, reviewer, for your suggestion on this. However, we have made the conclusions crisp and clear in response to the kind suggestion given by the reviewer. Therefore, finally mentioned the major areas where the motor parts show a significant decrease in the temperature and later put why CuO-based nanofluids are best among the three nanofluids which were considered.

Q3.       More detail comments can be seen in the attached draft.

Response: We thank the reviewer for mentioning a couple of worthy comments in the manuscript which need to be changed. The authors have tried their best possible to rectify those all in the revised manuscript. All have been modified as directed by the reviewer.

Q4.    All figures, tables, and equations must be explained in the text of the article.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer for this remark. However, we have reviewed the manuscript again and have found that all the figures, tables, and equations have been explained in the text of the article. Any significant changes were altered and rectified.

Q5.    Figures and tables can be appeared after first referring to the narration of the previous paragraph.

Response: Thank you reviewer for commenting this out. The authors want to bring to notice that the figures and tables or the equations wherever used have been referred to in the narration of the previous paragraph. In some places, it might not make sense while putting the images after the texts, that’s why the authors have taken this style into consideration.

Q6.    Referrals to the bibliography must be sequentially ordered and may not jump. Slide library no. 23 becomes 13 and change the other numbering. Improve this case in row 101.

Response: The reviewer is appreciated for pointing this out. Now the bibliography has been set in sequence order i.e. in ascending order. Thank you for pointing this out.

Q7.      Use proper writing style--> replace E by 10 and superscript for the power for value in Table 1.

Response: Authors are extremely sorry for this typo. This has been rectified in the revised manuscript now.

Q8.       Write more scientific writing style such as, don’t beginning word “and” as initial of the sentence.

Response: We are extremely sorry for this typo. Further, any blunder or typo like these has been checked and rectified in the revised manuscript.

Q9.       Acronyms that appear in the text must first be introduced before being used in subsequent sentences.

Response: The efforts from the reviewer to this keen observation are appreciated. We have rectified this mistake and have given the acronyms full form before the abbreviations used.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper deals with the cooling system and thermal analysis of Induction Motor -

1. Introduction need to discuss the highlights of the research work.

2. Add more literature papers about the Mobility Impacts as mentioned below-

Mopidevi, S., Narasipuram, R.P., Aemalla, S.R. and Rajan, H. ‘E-mobility: impacts and analysis of future transportation electrification market in economic, renewable energy and infrastructure perspective’, Int. J. Powertrains, Vol. 11, Nos. 2/3, pp.264–284, 2022.

3. Need to mention how practically it will be help full to the industry? and how the structure of cooling tubes effects the cooling of the component?

4. Some of the major equations are to be verified like equ 4,5

5. Boundary conditions section table 3 must be improved with more spec details

6. Improve quality of the figures 15, 16, 17

7. references format is not as per the journal

Quality of the english is good need to avoid typo errors

Author Response

Dear Editor/Reviewer

The authors are delighted to address the comments given by the respected reviewer. The authors appreciate his efforts in bringing further fine-tuning to the manuscript. The authors are confident that the modified manuscript will surely attract many readers. The authors look forward to a positive outcome of this effort. Finally, the authors are indebted to the Editor/Reviewer and the entire team for all their sincere and tireless efforts and coordination. All the modifications in the paper are in blue-colour.

Reviewer

This paper deals with the cooling system and thermal analysis of Induction Motor -

Q1. Introduction need to discuss the highlights of the research work.

Response: We thank the reviewer for suggesting we include the highlights of the paper in the introduction. We also request the reviewer consider the detailed study of our work to be included in the methodology analysis section. Actually, the authors have used the introduction part to discuss the heat generation theory in induction motors, the cooling schemes available in the industry today, and a brief introduction about nanofluids as a coolant.

Q2. Add more literature papers about the Mobility Impacts as mentioned below-

Mopidevi, S., Narasipuram, R.P., Aemalla, S.R. and Rajan, H. ‘E-mobility: impacts and analysis of future transportation electrification market in economic, renewable energy and infrastructure perspective’, Int. J. Powertrains, Vol. 11, Nos. 2/3, pp.264–284, 2022.

Response: We thank the reviewer for suggesting we include papers like this showing mobility impacts. This paper has been added to the reference section and has been cited appropriately.

Q3. Need to mention how practically it will be helpful to the industry? and how the structure of cooling tubes effects the cooling of the component?

Response: We really applaud the reviewer for asking this. Now we have mentioned in the discussions section that using nanofluids can provide several practical benefits to the industry, including- Improved Efficiency, Extended Life, Reduced Maintenance Costs, Increased Safety, and many more. The discussions to these all are mentioned in brief in the revised manuscript.

Also, since, this paper research is all about reducing the motor’s temperature at all parts using the nanofluids as a coolant and don’t focus on the different structure of cooling tubes which can have a significant impact on the cooling of components when using nanofluid as a coolant to reduce motor temperature. To discuss this, a separate work is need to be carried out focusing on a few ways in which cooling tube structure can affect cooling such as – working on Flow Rate, focusing on Heat Transfer Area, working on Turbulence, working for Pressure Drop, and a lot more.

Q4. Some of the major equations are to be verified like equ 4,5

Response: The authors are extremely thankful for pointing out this error. The authors worked meticulously to research this topic. We later cited a paper [17] from where equation 4 was taken. Also, equation 5 has been verified and has been given in the reference [18].

Q5. Boundary conditions section table 3 must be improved with more spec details

Response: We thank the reviewer for his kind suggestions. Newly separated details (below Table 3) have been given in the context of the details of the single-phase induction motor. Changes are made in the blue-colored text.

Q6. Improve quality of the figures 15, 16, 17

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer for enabling us to relook at these images. We have now updated the images to be of better quality than it was before. We sincerely apologize for this shortcoming.

Q7. References format is not as per the journal

Response: The reviewer is appreciated for his keen observations but let us tell you that we have taken the APA (American Psychological Association) style for writing the reference format.

Q8. Extensive editing of English language required

Response: The authors are grateful to the reviewer for providing us with another chance to read through the article and address the grammatical issues. We also utilized the Grammarly tool to detect flaws and modify the article..

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors overlooked some of the previous comments.

What is the flow chart shown on page 7? Is this dublicated? Should be checked.

Figures 15 and 16 still have not been improved, the text on the figures cannot be read. Should be justified. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

The authors are delighted to address the comments given by the respected reviewers. The authors appreciate their efforts in bringing further fine-tuning to the manuscript. The authors are confident that the modified manuscript will surely attract many readers. The authors look forward to a positive outcome of this effort. Finally, the authors are indebted to the Reviewer and the entire team for all their sincere and tireless efforts and coordination.

Reviewer

Q1. The authors overlooked some of the previous comments.

Response: Thank you for your kind observations and suggestions. We found some technical glitches that didn’t display the modified manuscript correctly. We have requested the Editor to look into this. Having said that, we have gone through your earlier comments and the present ones. We have done further modifications wherever necessary. We hope that would satisfy the requirements.

Q2. What is the flow chart shown on page 7? Is this dublicated? Should be checked.

Response: Thank you for your keen observations, Professor. We found some technical glitch that didn’t display the modified manuscript correctly and hence the duplication. We have requested the Editor also to look into this. Now, we are also sending the PDF so that the problem may not appear again.

Q3. Figures 15 and 16 still have not been improved, the text on the figures cannot be read. Should be justified. 

Response: We have attached the better-quality figures for figures 15 and 16. All in all, the details in the image have been enhanced.

Reviewer 2 Report

This revised version is still needing significant improvements.  See more in comments in the draft.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The writing quality is still needed to be improved. Please refer to academic and scientific writing literatures. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

The authors are delighted to address the comments given by the respected reviewers. The authors appreciate their efforts in bringing further fine-tuning to the manuscript. The authors are confident that the modified manuscript will surely attract many readers. The authors look forward to a positive outcome of this effort. Finally, the authors are indebted to the Reviewer and the entire team for all their sincere and tireless efforts and coordination.

Reviewer

Q1. The writing quality is still needed to be improved. Please refer to academic and scientific writing literatures. 

Response: We thank the reviewer for his keen concern to improvise the manuscript. We apologize for not editing the manuscript to the fullest measure. We have gone through the paper again and brought in many more changes. We have used the Grammarly tool and edited the manuscript. All the changes are highlighted in green.

Q2. This revised version is still needing significant improvements.  See more in comments in the draft.

Response: Thank you for your kind observations and suggestions. We found some technical glitches that didn’t display the modified manuscript correctly and, in some places, there are duplications as well. We have requested the Editor to look into this. Having said that, we have gone through the comments presented in the draft. We have done further modifications wherever necessary. Now, we are also sending the PDF so that the problem may not appear again. We hope that would satisfy the requirements.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Put the title of the figure below the figure.

Do not leave the bottom of the page blank.

Check the format if everything is compatible with the journal format

Average writing quality