Improving the Dynamics of an Electrical Drive Using a Modified Controller Structure Accompanied by Delayed Inputs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors present a proposal entitled: Improving the Dynamics of an Electrical Drive Using New Controller Structure Accompanied by Delayed Inputs. After reading the proposal, the following recommendations are made to the authors.
1.- It is recommended to include a list of acronyms.
2.- In Figure 3, the authors show a modified speed controller structure called MPID, which has the same structure of a neural network with multiple inputs and a single output. They could indicate the differences.
3.- The authors indicate the values used for the controllers, such as
Page 5, line 195, K=1, tau=0.5s
Pg 6, line 206, Tf=0.5s,
Pg 6, line 222, Ts=33ms
The reason for these values must be justified.
4.- Pg. 6, line 215, What do the authors mean by virtual error and what is its mathematical or experimental justification?
5.- Fig. 5, it is confusing the labels of each simulation, a) and b) the authors indicate that they are simulations for Skogested and PID optimization, but the labels do not correspond.
6.- It is recommended to change the title to:
Improving the Dynamics of an Electrical Drive Using Modified Controller Structure Accompanied by Delayed Inputs.
Since a new controller is not presented, what is done is a modification of controllers already proposed and studied.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Your feedback on our manuscript is genuinely appreciated. The insightful comments you've provided not only acknowledge the diversity of perspectives in approaching the content but also highlight the constructive nature of our collaborative effort. Your unique viewpoint contributes to a more comprehensive evaluation, fostering a richer understanding of the subject matter. I welcome the opportunity to consider and integrate your suggestions, recognizing the value they bring to the refinement and enhancement of our work. Thank you for your thoughtful engagement and valuable.
We have included responses to all comments in the appendix.
Yours,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
the paper "Improving the Dynamics of a Electrical Drive Using New Controller Structure Accompanied by Delayed Inputs" proposes a PI/PID controller with no need of estimator systems achieving a high dynamic range. The proposition is supported either by simulation results or experimental ones.
Please, address the following issues:
1) What are I2PD and FOLIPD objects? Incorporate this explanation in the introduction of the paper.
2) line 97 - such as "an" FIR Filter - such as a FIR Filter.
3) Figure 2 - there is a diamond decision with the question "is better"? Based on what the decision is made to determine if the quality index is better or not?
4) line 173 and 174 - "The weights and settings of the modified controller are selected using a random method". What do you mean by random method?
5) Figure 5 - Is it possible to eliminate the overshoot?
6) Figure 7 - First, there is an overshoot based on the chaging of the speed reference. Then an undershoot followed by another overshoot appear due to the presence do the load. If this sentence is correct, I would recommend to include in the first figure a legend on it detailing it. As this patern is repeated for all results, it facilitates the comprehension of the graphs.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Your feedback on our manuscript is genuinely appreciated. The insightful comments you've provided not only acknowledge the diversity of perspectives in approaching the content but also highlight the constructive nature of our collaborative effort. Your unique viewpoint contributes to a more comprehensive evaluation, fostering a richer understanding of the subject matter. I welcome the opportunity to consider and integrate your suggestions, recognizing the value they bring to the refinement and enhancement of our work. Thank you for your thoughtful engagement and valuable.
We have included responses to all comments in the appendix.
Yours,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe reviewer has major concerns about the paper titled "Improving the Dynamics of an Electrical Drive Using a New Controller Structure Accompanied by Delayed Inputs." These concerns focus on key aspects of the methodology, the effectiveness of the proposed solution, and the accuracy of the results. Clarifications and adjustments are required to address these issues before the paper can be considered for acceptance.
1. The English requires enhancement due to the presence of several grammatical and spelling mistakes.
2. Revise the abstract and introduction to highlight the paper’s contributions more effectively.
3. Figures 1and 3 lacks a clear representation of the output (control signal) despite being mentioned in the caption.
4. The font size is too large of some figures (1,3, 4 and 6) which affects the overall visual balance. A smaller font would improve clarity.
5. Introducing a delay typically slows down the system’s response to changes in input, potentially causing the system to take longer to reach the desired setpoint or recover from disturbances. Could you clarify how the delay introduced in your approach affects the response time, and how this potential drawback is mitigated, particularly in time-sensitive applications?
6. It is unusual and concerning that the experimental results outperform the simulation results in table 2. Typically, simulations are idealized and provide better outcomes than real-world experiments due to the absence of noise and other unpredictable factors. In this case, the real experimental results, such as the overshoot and settling time for MPI_real, are better than MPI_sim. This discrepancy raises questions about the accuracy of the simulation model and its ability to capture the system's real-world dynamics. Could the author clarify why the simulation results are worse than the experimental ones? Are there any specific factors in the model that may be contributing to these unexpected results?
7. While the introduction discusses the general importance of control systems in electrical drives, the literature review could be expanded to include more detailed comparisons with existing advanced control methods, such as model predictive control (MPC) or more recent AI-based optimization techniques. This would help to contextualize the contribution more clearly.
8. The description of the method for choosing FIR filter parameters and weighting factors could be more detailed. Readers may benefit from a clearer explanation of how these parameters are optimized, especially in practical applications.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Your feedback on our manuscript is genuinely appreciated. The insightful comments you've provided not only acknowledge the diversity of perspectives in approaching the content but also highlight the constructive nature of our collaborative effort. Your unique viewpoint contributes to a more comprehensive evaluation, fostering a richer understanding of the subject matter. I welcome the opportunity to consider and integrate your suggestions, recognizing the value they bring to the refinement and enhancement of our work. Thank you for your thoughtful engagement and valuable.
We have included responses to all comments in the appendix.
Yours,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsChanges have been made properly
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish language fine. No issues detected.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am pleased to confirm that the authors have made all the requested changes and addressed the comments raised during the initial review process.
The revisions have significantly improved the clarity and quality of the paper, and I believe the manuscript is now acceptable in its current form. I recommend the paper for acceptance.
