Research on Dual-Motor Redundant Compensation for Unstable Fluid Load of Control Valves

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Figures are informative but very dense. Please, consider simplifying captions and highlighting key differences.

The study lacks experimental validation. While a prototype may not be feasible at this stage, please discuss how your model could be experimentally verified in future work. What are the expected mechanical and thermal limits of the proposed dual-motor system in real environments (deep-sea, nuclear)?

The introduction highlights industrial relevance but does not sufficiently integrate recent advances in hydraulic system dynamics. Please extend the background with discussions of pressure pulsation mechanisms and nonlinear valve effects (for example doi:10.1177/14613484241300753 and doi:10.1177/16878132251343945) maybe great will be include an a different technic overview for the Reduction of pressure pulsations (in example doi:10.3390/machines13010025). Extended backgroung would broaden the context by linking your dual-motor strategy to the wider challenge of mitigating oscillations and pulsations in hydraulic systems.

Eq. (1) is very dense. Please provide an appendix or supplementary derivation to clarify the assumptions and steps.

The AMESim and Simulink models are presented clearly, but key assumptions need justification: Why was water chosen as the medium, given that many oil/gas valves use compressible fluids? What is the assumed bandwidth and accuracy of the sensors used in the model? How sensitive are the results to valve geometry variations?

Please include a sensitivity analysis of at least one key parameter (e.g., fluid density in example).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some grammatical issues remain (e.g., “the flow callback” → “the flow recovery”). A careful language revision is recommended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper addresses the issue of performance degradation in control valves caused by unstable fluid loads under complex operating conditions, proposing a drive scheme based on dual-motor redundant compensation. The topic has a clear engineering background and practical value. After a thorough review, I have the following comments or suggestions.
1. I recommend adding a structural diagram in the introduction section to illustrate the structure of a conventional control valve, and use this diagram to explain the existing issues (corresponding to the first and second paragraphs of the original manuscript). This not only makes the content more reader-friendly but also facilitates the introduction of the newly developed dual-motor drive scheme and highlights the innovativeness of this study.
2. The formula on line 165 should be listed on a separate line and numbered.
3. A formula is missing: how the motor output torque T is converted into driving force, or how the load force is converted into load torque.
4. Section 3 currently only has subsection 3.1. The subsequent content should be divided into subsections 3.2, 3.3, etc., based on the topic.
5. We strongly recommend optimizing Figure 7. The current version of Figure 7 appears to be merely a screenshot from the AME Sim interface. Adding arrows to label each module would make it more reader-friendly.
6. “7. Patents”? This confuses me. 
7. The study only selects “pressure step changes at the inlet” as an extreme operating condition. Are there any other common extreme operating conditions? How effective is this scheme in addressing them? 
8. The study is based on simulation modeling, but the manuscript does not include verification of the simulation model. How can we ensure that the established model accurately reflects the performance of the actual prototype?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your detailed revisions and thoughtful responses to the reviewers’ comments. The corrections have strengthened the manuscript, and I find it suitable for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please include the reason for selecting “pressure step changes at the inlet” as an extreme operating condition in the main text of the manuscript. 
Additionally, the authors mentioned in their response to Comment 6 that this method is a “general compensation solution centered on dynamic load response.” These statements should also be included in an appropriate location within the main text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf