Parameter Identification of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor with Dynamic Forgetting Factor Based on H∞ Filtering Algorithm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper a H∞ filtering algorithm containing dynamic forgetting factor is proposed to address on-line identification of resistance and inductance of a permanent magnet synchronous motor. Two approach is assessed numerically.

In my opinion the paper is interesting, but there are a few issues:

- Language should be improved;

- There are many formatting issues, mostly regarding the mathematical symbols;

- At the end of Introduction, a paragraph should be included, presenting the structure of the paper;

- The technique proposed should be compared with alternative techniques. Otherwise, we cannot conclude about the advantages and drawbacks of the new scheme;

- Drawbacks and limitations should be discussed.

- Language should be improved;

- There are many formatting issues, mostly regarding the mathematical symbols;

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for checking our manuscript, we have made changes in this paper according to your suggestions. Please see the attachment.

Kind regards,

Jiu Chang

Northeast Electric Power University

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

- The work is limited to simulation at the moment. At least, include the discussion on its real-world implementation on a real PMSM. What could be potential challenges if the proposed Hinf based filtering algorithm is to be realised on a real motor?

- Line 28 mentions about 'stably'. Include stability analysis in your methodology.

- In Section 2 (Modeling of PMSM parameter identification), include a schematic of PMSM to help the readers better and smoothly understand the derived mathematical model.

- It would be nice to mention the rationale of choosing Hinf algorithm with brief details on distinguishing features of Hinf with reference to 10.1109/ICRAI.2012.6413422 

- Include paper structure at the end of Section 1 (Introduction) saying something like: The remamining of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 explains ...

- The effect of accuracy of PMSM parameters on the control performance highlighted in Section 1 (First paragraph) could benefit from the reference "Nonlinear adaptive backstepping control of permanent magnet synchronous motor"

- Discussion on results need to be more critical and conclusive. Also, mention limitations of the proposed identification method

- Line 70 mentions the improvements in standard Kalman Filtering method. Also include unscented Kalman Filtering with reference to 10.1371/journal.pone.0257849 

- Quantitative analysis of the results obtained needs to be improved. Please avoid using subjective words like 'quickly', stably' etc. How 'quick' is quickly? 

MINOR:

- English needs significant improvement. Please break down long sentences into two e.g. in Abstract, a sentence starts on Line 14 and ends on Line 21.

- On Line 17, ... and the problem of the extremes (add the word 'values') of the different ...

- Instead of writing 'Literature' again and again in Section 1 (Introduction) while reporting the literature, please write first author name et al. (if there are more than two authors).

- On Line 71, 'premise' should be 'promise'.

- On Line 97, please add the word 'respectively'

- Replace Matlab with MATLAB/Simulink

- In Table 1, the unit could be represented as a new column 'Unit'

- In the legends in Figures 2-6, the spellings of 'Ture' should be corrected to 'True'

- On Line 237. it is claimed that since the actual value is within 5%, so the effectiveness of the proposed method for identification is proved. How do you know that within 5% is adequate/enough? Any reference?

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for checking our manuscript, we have made changes in this paper according to your suggestions. Please see the attachment.

Kind regards,

Jiu Chang

Northeast Electric Power University

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All my previous concerns were satisfactorily addressed.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised submission has been greatly improved and can be accepted.

Requires moderate editing.