Estimation Strategy of RUL Calculation in the Case of Crack in the Magnets of PMM Used in HEV Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.  The work has not shown any surprising observations or significant novelty. I recommend that author show the novelty and its contribution clearly in the manuscript.

2. Figures in this manuscript should be improved, such as the font and unit of x-axis and y-axis. For example, in Figure 3, the label and unit of the y-axis should be similar to the x-axis.

3. In Figure 11, the font should be standardized and modified completely according to the requirements of the journal article.

4. The experiments are indispensable, necessarily, and FEA can only be used as a verification tool, which cannot completely replace experiments.

5. The conclusion section should be improved. The conclusion mainly expresses as following: 1). Existing problems, 2). Solutions in this paper, 3). Results of the methods proposed in the paper, and 4). Future works.

Author Response

Dear Dr.

Please see the attachment.

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Authors are encouraged to mention the original contribution of the paper over and above the literature in the relevant field. Moreover, for the HEV application some sort of case studies may be recommended to claim the strategy. 

2. Result analysis and discussion is fine. Few results in this study may be compared with the existing works available in the literature. 

3. Authors have truly done an exhaustive discussion in this context. Conclusion is precise. 

4. Proofreading of this article may be checked once before final submission.

Author Response

Dear Dr.

Please see the attachment.

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper, the authors collect the torque, temperature, and vibration signals of a permanent magnet motor, and use the Hidden Markov Model (HMM) to prognostic the motor health state. When cracks exist, the Paris equation is used to model the growth and propagation of cracks, and the machine’s remaining useful life (RUL) is calculated. The paper structure is clear, however, there are still some issues that lead me to think it is not ready for publication in its current form.

1. The authors mention “Although the variation in the temperature is not highly detectable for demagnetization fault” in section 2. Since the temperature change is not obvious, can we consider not using the temperature signals in the prognostic? How does this affect RUL calculations? Please add comparison results for verification.

2. In section 5, before calculating the RUL at different crack depths, give the confidence interval graphs for the predicted results of the HMM.

3. To calculate the RUL, the Paris equation is used to model the growth and propagation of cracks. Are there other models for modeling crack growth? If so, compare the pros and cons of other models with the Paris equation appropriately in section 3.

4. In section 5, there is no description of data acquisition, please give the necessary information such as motor model, sampling frequency, experimental conditions, etc.

Author Response

Dear Dr.

Please see the attachment.

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The novelty and contribution of the revised draft are clearly expressed, and the standardization of the chart is improved, so that readers can easily understand the work of the paper.In my opinion, this manuscript is suitable for publication now.

Reviewer 3 Report

No further request.