A Study on the Manufacture of Permanent Magnet Traction Control Valve for Electronic Stability Control in Electric Vehicles
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper deals with a study on a standard solenoid control valve used in automotive and its redesign in order to increase its durability and efficiency in terms of energy consumption.
In the first paragraph, a description of the application is presented, followed by a list of previous studies in similar cases, which were used as the basis for the article.
In the second paragraph, the standard version of the solenoid control valve is presented, analyzing it in terms of force balance. The third paragraph presents a wide discussion on the valve redesign, taking into account the acting components (solenoid and permanent magnet) making an extensive use of simulations.
In the fourth paragraph, the production and the evaluation of the performances on the old and new control valve are presented, validating the design and calculation aforementioned.
Finally, conclusion on the successfully tests are presented in the last paragraph.
Broad comments:
The paper is interesting and really full of results, both from a simulation and tests point of view. The small modification I would suggest is on its structure: some results on the standard solenoid control valve (old version) are presented in the paragraph entitled “design of the permanent magnet TCV”, sub-paragraph “design of permanent magnet”. I think it may be useful to present the study on the standard solenoid control valve in a dedicated sub-paragraph, maybe in the second paragraph.
Consider to indicate the magnetic force due to the permanent magnet, to the solenoid and their sum with three different names, clearly declaring them and maintaining this nomenclature through the article, in order to increase its legibility.
Finally, I think that in the conclusion some sentences regarding the FEM simulations should be presented in relation to the experimental results. Moreover, few shorts phrases on future works or plan in the developed control valve should be added.
Unfortunately, English needs be revised. Some example, only in the first paragraph, are reported:
- phrase at line n°46-49
- phrase at line n°62-64
- phrase at line n°72-73
Minor:
- Title: I think it is better to avoid acronym in the title. Consider to substitute it with the complete words
- Abstract: use the complete words and presenting the acronym between brackets at least at the first time
- Line N°90, repetition of study
- Line 197-200, four repetition of “magnetic coil” in four lines
- Paragraph 3: it can be useful to add a figure as the n°5 in order to present the electromagnetic force. Consider to add it or modify figure n°5.
- Formula 7: Nd2, not N2d
- Table 1: add the description to the parameters (ex. Conduct diameter Bi)
- Line n°211: add axisymmetric to the description of “two-dimensional (2D) model”
- Figure 12 c) and d): remove these figures since are not significant
- Line n°368: repetition of pressing and pressure
- Line n°396-397: the sentence “this magnetic force could not open the sol-seat flow path” is misleading.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
No suggestions
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The study presents the design and manufacturing of a permanent magnet traction control valve for ESC in electric vehicles to reduce the unnecessary power consumption of electric vehicle batteries. Overall, the presentation is nice and the paper is well organized but it lacks scientific content in terms of highlighting the current gap in knowledge, and linking the results to the literature by making discussion and referring to the state-of-the-art. It is a very good industrial report, but to be recommended for publishing in a scientific journal, authors are recommended to expand their literature review and clearly highlight their novelty in terms of scientific contribution. Also, in the last paragraph of intro, the authors explained too many details about their work that are already mentioned in their abstract, but still did not differentiate their work from the literature in terms of the research advancement.
Also, please link your discussion to the literature. In its current form, the paper is more like an industrial report.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for addressing my comments. I recommend publication.
