MFC/IMC Control Algorithm for Reduction of Load Torque Disturbance in PMSM Servo Drive Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Major comments:
The reviewed paper proposes an interesting approach for MFC/IMC cascade for velocity control of permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM) with the aim of reducing the influence of torque load disturbance. Very Important is the developed MFC/IMC method is an improvement over the classical cascade for velocities near the operating point.
Presented research in this contribution is new and on one hand fills the research gap in the velocity control of permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM), and on the other hand, fits to Applied Sciences journal profile.
The paper has a logical structure and is clearly, concisely and accurately written, however some sections require an extension.
I suggest authors should add discussion about pros and cons of proposed approach.
Minor comments:
Correct typos.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The authors are very grateful for the insightful remarks. The article has been corrected as per your observations, and hopefully, is a much more valuable research study now. Authors' response is given for each of the major points included in the review. We hope you will be satisfied with the proposed changes.
Yours,
Krzysztof Pietrusewicz
Pietrusewicz Krzysztof, PhD, DSc, Associate Professor
Rector's representative for Industry 4.0
West Pomeranian University of Technology, Szczecin
Faculty of Electrical Engineering
Department of Control Engineering and Robotics
Sikorskiego 37, 70 – 313 Szczecin, Poland
Mobile: +48 663 398 396
Hangouts, Keep: [email protected]
Skype: krzysztof.pietrusewicz
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/krzysztof-pietrusewicz-a6666278
Reviewer 2 Report
Great study, well-organized manuscript, adequately described physics, great experiment design, accurately presented results and thorough conclusion which proves improvement in performance. I believe the manuscript is ready to be published.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The authors are very grateful for Your review.
Yours,
Krzysztof Pietrusewicz
Pietrusewicz Krzysztof, PhD, DSc, Associate Professor
Rector's representative for Industry 4.0
West Pomeranian University of Technology, Szczecin
Faculty of Electrical Engineering
Department of Control Engineering and Robotics
Sikorskiego 37, 70 – 313 Szczecin, Poland
Mobile: +48 663 398 396
Hangouts, Keep: [email protected]
Skype: krzysztof.pietrusewicz
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/krzysztof-pietrusewicz-a6666278
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors provide a theoretical study for a permanent magnet synchronous motor system.
They model an electric circuit with concentrated parameters like resistors, inductances and electromotive generators, with 2 unknown currents and one unknown rotor variable angular velocity. From Kirchhoff laws and Newton’s second law they could write a 1st order nonlinear system of 3 ordinary differential equations (ODE) for these 3 functions. In addition they have one more constraint functional (not differential) equation for angular frequency. The authors perform a linearization of all these 4 equations. The authors then move to study a control linear system, perform numerical calculations and obtain 2 sensitivity functions S plotted vs. angular velocity. Then the authors move then to describe experiments made and show a lot of data obtained.
Comments:
1. Page 3 line 104: apparently there is no difference between x9t) and y(t) which doesn’t make any sense. Also there is no comma between the components inside the vectors… this is confusing because at line 86/page 3 the authors used commas.
2. Eq. 6 page 4: what is the point of introducing matrix D in eq. 5/page 3 when few lines below D matrix is anyway zero? This doesn’t look good at all.
3. In eqs. 7, 8 authors used the symbol W_M (s) for a 3 by 3 matrix, and then in eqs. 10, 11 they used exactly the same symbol for a 2 by 2 matrix. This is not useful, and it is confusing.
4. Eq. 9 is not necessary. It can be easily observed from eqs. 7 and 8 at page 5. May be similar situations happen with the other systems.
5. The theoretical analysis in section 4 doesn’t really connect to the differential equations in section 3. I didn’t get from this manuscript how section 3 is used, and how the ODE system is solved. In chapter 4 authors use parameter (independent variable) s and in section 3 is t, time. No real explanation how they are connected.
6. For 2 theoretical sections (3 and 4) the only theoretical result is in Fig. 4. All other figures are from experimental data. We do not see any comparison between theoretical predictions or evaluations and experiments, except may be few numbers a table. This is a big missing part of this manuscript.
7. Fig. 11 (a) doesn’t make any sense. Experimental velocity (green) looks good and plausible, and theoretical velocity is zero everywhere? What do we compare here? We understand that the green trace receives a disturbance, and then, by oscillating, the system tries to get back to the stable velocity, but actually the everywhere-zero blue line is no theoretical help and no information.
In conclusion we recommend rejection of this manuscript from publication in your journal. However, if the authors can come back with an improved version addressing all our comments, that revised version may be reconsider for another review. In case some of our objections presented above is not correct, still the authors should explain in a letter where in their paper that problem is answered and explained in a convincing way.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The authors are very grateful for the insightful remarks. The article has been corrected as per your observations, and hopefully, is a much more valuable research study now. Authors' response is given for each of the major points included in the review. We hope you will be satisfied with the proposed changes.
Yours,
Krzysztof Pietrusewicz
Pietrusewicz Krzysztof, PhD, DSc, Associate Professor
Rector's representative for Industry 4.0
West Pomeranian University of Technology, Szczecin
Faculty of Electrical Engineering
Department of Control Engineering and Robotics
Sikorskiego 37, 70 – 313 Szczecin, Poland
Mobile: +48 663 398 396
Hangouts, Keep: [email protected]
Skype: krzysztof.pietrusewicz
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/krzysztof-pietrusewicz-a6666278
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors presented an improved version. They took into account the comments raised, and they answered or revised the manuscript accordingly. The paper has improved substantially and we recommend for publication in the present revised form.
