Active Disturbance Rejection for Linear Induction Motors: A High-Order Sliding-Mode-Observer-Based Twisting Controller
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPaper presents a twisting controller (TC) based on a high-order sliding mode observer (HOSMO) for linear induction motors. Authors developed two extended subsystems (a velocity and flux extended model) based on the LIM’s model and the filed-oriented frame. Authors proposed TC-HOSMO scheme.
Some corrections and additional explanations should be added.
Line 113 and 120: both extended models are made based on [13]. It is important to clear – are these extended models authors new approach or is this summarized from [13]. The extended models are presented as main contribution of the article, but it looks like they are summarised from literature – Please clear that.
Figure 4: In figure 4 actual f1 and estimated x is presented. It is not clear what an improvement is obtained using new approach. It should be clear presented and explained what are the advantages of the presented approach.
Figure 5: In figure 5 actual f2 and estimated x3 is presented. It is not clear what an approvement is obtained. The zoom in part of the figure is not explained.
Figure 6: Based on figure it is not clear which approach is better TC or TC- HOSMO? Please explain which and why. Also detailed explanation about tracking error is missing.
Figure 7: Based on figure it is not clear which approach is better TC or TC- HOSMO? Please explain which and why. Also detailed explanation about tracking error is missing.
Figure 8: Discussion about results presented in the figure 8 is missing. Please explain results presented in the figure 8.
Author Response
Reviewer#1, Concern # 1: Line 113 and 120: both extended models are made based on [13]. It is important to clear – are these extended models authors new approach or is this summarized from [13]. The extended models are presented as main contribution of the article, but it looks like they are summarised from literature – Please clear that.
Author response: These extended models are summarized by the authors from [13]. The main innovation of this paper is based on the above expansion model, and the establishment of a twisting controller (TC) based on a high-order sliding mode observer (HOSMO) for linear induction motors.
Author action: We are very grateful to you for your review efforts and critiques on this paper.
Reviewer#1, Concern # 2: Figure 4: In figure 4 actual f1 and estimated x is presented. It is not clear what an improvement is obtained using new approach. It should be clear presented and explained what are the advantages of the presented approach.
Author response: Thank you very much for your kindly comments and the whole evaluation. Fig. 4 shows the excellent properties of the higher-order sliding mode observer in estimating all perturbations. It should be emphasized that the main innovation of this paper is based on the above expansion model, and the establishment of a twisting controller (TC) based on a high-order sliding mode observer (HOSMO) for linear induction motors. Both theoretical analysis and experimental results validate that the proposed TC-HOSMO framework provides an effective control solution for LIM.
Author action: According to your requirements, we have made serious and targeted modifications. Thank you very much again.
Reviewer#1, Concern # 3: Figure 5: In figure 5 actual f2 and estimated x3 is presented. It is not clear what an approvement is obtained. The zoom in part of the figure is not explained.
Author response: Thank you very much for your kindly comments and the whole evaluation. The zoom in part of the figure has been explained in the revised version.
Author action: According to your requirements, we have made serious and targeted modifications. Thank you very much again.
Reviewer#1, Concern # 4: Figure 6: Based on figure it is not clear which approach is better TC or TC- HOSMO? Please explain which and why. Also detailed explanation about tracking error is missing.
Author response: Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable comments. Due to the author's negligence, and it can be seen that compared with traditional TC, it has less chattering.
Author action: According to your requirements, we have made serious and targeted modifications. Thank you very much again.
Reviewer#1, Concern # 5: Figure 7: Based on figure it is not clear which approach is better TC or TC- HOSMO? Please explain which and why. Also detailed explanation about tracking error is missing.
Author response: Thank you very much for your kindly comments and the whole evaluation. Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable comments. Due to the author's negligence, it can be seen that compared with traditional TC, it has less chattering. A detailed explanation about tracking error has been added.
Author action: According to your requirements, we have made serious and targeted modifications. Thank you very much again.
Reviewer#1, Concern # 6: Figure 8: Discussion about results presented in the figure 8 is missing. Please explain results presented in the figure 8.
Author response: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Discussion about results presented in the figure 8 has been added in the revised version.
Author action: According to your requirements, we have made serious and targeted modifications. Thank you very much again.
Authors once again sincerely appreciate the technical editor and reviewers for their beneficial and helpful review comments. Thank you again for your time on this paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the paper, the usage of two linear induction motor models i.e. a velocity extended model and a flux extended model, are used to estimate the disturbances. The main advantage of the proposed solution is the reduction of chattering. This is possible through active disturbance rejection. The article presents a theoretical approach to solving the posed problem. The Hil technique was used for validation. However, thew description of this approach is too general. In particular, the model shown in Fig. 3 should be described in more detail. It should be explained which equations were used in which hardware components. Similarly, the signals passed between individual hardware modules must be defined. This will make it easier to understand how the proposed system works.
The waveforms recorded and shown in Fig. 6, 7 and 8 require more detailed comments. In particular, the upper and lower figures should be discussed. The obtained effect in the form of chattering reduction should be shown in more detail and characterized by specific numerical values i.e. how much chattering was reduced.
The article needs minor revision, explanation etc. before publication.
Author Response
Reviewer#2, Concern # 1: In the paper, the usage of two linear induction motor models i.e. a velocity extended model and a flux extended model, are used to estimate the disturbances. The main advantage of the proposed solution is the reduction of chattering. This is possible through active disturbance rejection. The article presents a theoretical approach to solving the posed problem. The Hil technique was used for validation. However, thew description of this approach is too general. In particular, the model shown in Fig. 3 should be described in more detail. It should be explained which equations were used in which hardware components. Similarly, the signals passed between individual hardware modules must be defined. This will make it easier to understand how the proposed system works.
Author response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your suggestions on model details and signal definitions, we have made relevant additions in the revised draft. This is complemented by the correlation equations used in hardware components. The signals transmitted between the various hardware modules are defined so that the authors can better understand how the system works.
Author action: Thank you once again for your insightful suggestions.
Reviewer#2, Concern # 2: The waveforms recorded and shown in Fig. 6, 7 and 8 require more detailed comments. In particular, the upper and lower figures should be discussed. The obtained effect in the form of chattering reduction should be shown in more detail and characterized by specific numerical values i.e. how much chattering was reduced.
Author response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. According to your suggestions and requirements, the corresponding waveform is given more detailed annotations, and the degree of vibration reduction is reflected in specific values.
Author action: We are very grateful to you for your review efforts and critiques on this paper.
Authors once again sincerely appreciate the technical editor and reviewers for their beneficial and helpful review comments. Thank you again for your time on this paper.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors considered all my comments. Paper can be published in the present form.