Remaining Secondary Voltage Mitigation in Multivector Model Predictive Control Schemes for Multiphase Electric Drives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is interesting and will attract the attention of readers. The development of new control methods aimed at improving the energy performance of multiphase machines has scientific novelty and practical significance.

Below are comments on the design and content of the submitted article:

In my opinion, it would be appropriate to clearly highlight the authors’ contributions in the Introduction section.

In Fig. 7e, the harmonic analysis of currents a1, b1, and c1 is presented. However, the obtained results require further justification. In particular, questions arise regarding the case of THD = 54.1%, since the same figure shows that the 5th harmonic has an amplitude of only about 5%. This raises doubts about the consistency between the THD value and the harmonic analysis results.

Moreover, in the currents shown in Fig. 7d, a clear asymmetry is observed; however, in the harmonic analysis, the 3rd harmonic and its multiples are absent, which also questions the correctness of the analysis.

I recommend enlarging and improving the quality of Fig. 6 for better presentation.
In Fig. 9, it would be advisable to zoom in on the sections showing the differences between the reference and actual rotational speed values.

It would also be appropriate to include results demonstrating the effect of the proposed control scheme on the machine’s electromagnetic torque compared to the classical control method.

Author Response

Please find the response of your comments/suggestions in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are some comments:
1. The abstract and conclusion should explicitly state the quantitative improvement of the proposed method compared with the benchmark technique.
2. The contribution of the work needs to be clarified. Is the addition of a closed-loop mechanism by itself considered a substantial improvement? As shown in Fig. 9 (Lines 359–362), it did not significantly affect the dynamic response.
3. The propsed control appears to increase system complexity and cost. The authors should expand the discussion of limitations and possible challenges in real-world applications.
4. The dynamic response under load variation should be included to strengthen the experimental validation.
5. The English language and clarity should be refined in several sections to improve readability.

Author Response

Please find the response of your comments/suggestions in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the topic is relevant to the journal and appropriate. Electric drive is widely used in various applications like electric vehicles. Multiphase electric drives for electric transport have several advantages, such as low noise and vibration or higher reliability.

This manuscript is well structured and consists of an introduction, theoretical and experimental sections. In my opinion, this paper is short and concise, describing the essence of the matter clearly enough. The volume of this paper is sufficient to present the results for readers.

The list of references consists of 57 links, which is more than enough for a comprehensive review of relevant publications - the authors have put a lot of effort into reviewing state-of-the-art.

The main disadvantage of this study is the lack of a clear application area for such an electric drive as experimental conditions - this is only a formal testing of a new type of control. In different areas of application - electric vehicles, actuators, electric aircraft, there may be different priorities and dynamics features. This was not taken into account when conducting a practical experiment on a test rig. This is the wide study for the entire field of application.

To improve this paper:

[page 12, Figure 7,e] please use log scale for Y-axis THD% (fig7,e). This would be much better for readers

[page 13, Figure 8,e] ---the same----

[page 11, Table 1] sampling time 0.1 ms should be enough - but not great. It would be better to add a description about the equipment for measuring currents and transferring data to the PC.

[page 12, line 346] please explain the choice of the 2.5 Ohm resistor, why exactly this one? Answer a few questions – how big is the asymmetry in %? what kind of asymmetry can be encountered in practice? Is this an emergency situation? Can the resistance of single-phase circuit be even greater and how much greater? Readers will be grateful for this additional info.

[page 14, line 397] same, “…and improved current quality under a significant variation in stator resistance”. It would be better to specify the acceptable range - or provide reference link to an article or book with similar data.

I recommend this article after some minor revision.

Author Response

Please find the response of your comments/suggestions in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks. All my comments have been addressed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #2,

Thank you for your efforts to improve the quality of our work. The manuscript has been modified to avoid typos and grammar mistakes.

Please find attached the new manuscript version where the changes have been highlighted in blue font.

Our best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf