Analytical Model to Calculate Radial Forces in Permanent-Magnet Synchronous Machines

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article presents an analytical model to calculate radial forces in PMSMs. The detailed demonstration is provided. FEM simulation and experiments are carried out to verify the model. The paper is well structured and presents its results in an easily understandable way. Still, there are some issues that need to be addressed: 

1. (L19,L22, etc) both, ->both (remove comma)
2. (L58, L69) what -> which
3. (L65, L101, L195, etc) applying -> by applying
4. (L211-212, Fig.2 ) The call-out is not consistent with the text the preceding text. It might be that the call-out arrowed-line is not correctly pointed for Figs. 2-b and 2-c.
5. (L127, equation 1) The symbol definition or explanation should be in the same sentence as the equation. Therefore, “ Where” ->“where” (no indent). The same for the following equations.  Besides, “where” should be added for L136, L185, etc.
6. (L98-100, L188-190 ) The sentences should be carefully checked and revised.
7. (equation 15) “=” replicated
8. (L334) analyzed -> listed
9. (L350) is considered -> which is considered
10. (Section 4) Some critical parameters for the analytical and FEM calculations should be given.
11. (L369-370) The analytical and FEM results in Fig. 12 match better than in Fig. 13. But “identical” might still not be a proper word.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We are grateful for your corrections. We have implemented all of them. Thanks for your time and help.

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper there is a repetition of results presented in [1] in a rather great extent. The paper should be reorganized and shortened so that only most important facts from [1] are repeated. The experimental measurement analysis should be further extended and elaborated.

 

Suggestions and questions:

1. English grammar and writing style should be improved.
2. There should be reference to Table 1 in the text or Table 1 should be left out.
3. Could you explain the physical meaning of negative harmonics?
4. Even though sections 2 and 3 (subsections 3.1. and 3.2) give the good review of magnetic forces sources and magnetic force analytical model development, it is hard to follow which equations are taken from the literature, and which equations are newly introduced in this paper.
5. What does the abbreviation PSD in Figures 24 and 25 mean? Why are the tables incorporated in these figures?
6. It is hard to actually compare the experimental results (acceleration spectrum) with analytical and FEM numerical results (magnetic flux densities and magnetic pressures spectra).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We are grateful for your corrections, we answer following.

• We have tried to improve the grammar and writing style.
• The Table 1 is referenced in the text (L 344).
• Really, they are not negative harmonics. They are phasors that appears due to the Euler property when the Fourier series are represented in complex form. We have included a new section (3.1 Complex Fourier series) to explain this issue.
• We have modified the introduction to concretely explain which are the newly introduced expressions in the article (L111-L114)
• PSD is the Power Spectrum Density of the vibrations. The reason why the tables are included, is to see which are the orders of the vibrations that are obtained by the analytical model and then, these orders are pointed in the graphics.

• The results obtained by the analytical model have been corroborated with the comparison of the results obtained by FEM simulations. Finally, the experimentally measurement order of the vibrations (acceleration spectrums) allow us to check the orders of the vibrations, so indirectly can be affirmed that the spectra of the magnetic flux densities and pressures are also corroborated. In the end, to match the orders of the vibrations, the orders of the magnetic flux densities and pressures must be correct.

Thanks for your time and help.

Best regards

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

As a new subsection has been added, the subsection 3.1., the introductory discussions can be shortened so that only most important facts from [1] are repeated. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks for your time and help, according to your suggestions we have shortened the introduction.

Best regards