Fuzzy PID Control Design of Mining Electric Locomotive Based on Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have found that the authors need to make several revisions to their paper:

1. The authors should revise the title of the paper to better reflect the content and focus of the study.

2. The abstract needs to be revised and structured to include background information, objectives, methodology, and brief results.

3. The authors should demonstrate the originality of their work. To achieve this, a new section should be added at the end of the introduction to emphasize the uniqueness of the study.

4. The paper should be revised and reorganized to ensure the following sections are present: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussions, and Conclusion.

By implementing these revisions and reorganizing the structure of the paper according to the suggested format, the authors can enhance the clarity, coherence, and originality of their work. This will not only improve the quality of the paper but also help communicate the key aspects of the study effectively to readers. Based on the revisions and reorganization suggested, the paper has the potential to meet the publication criteria and contribute valuable insights to the field.

Good luck!

Author Response

Thank you, respected reviewer, for your detailed feedback on our manuscript to ensure its quality for publication. We have carefully followed the journal guidelines regarding figure placement. We acknowledge the importance of specifying explanations related to figures before their presentation, and we will make sure to address this in our manuscript. Your insight is invaluable to us, and we appreciate your guidance in enhancing the clarity of our work. Thank you once again for your valuable input.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are several important issues to be rigorously addressed as follows:

 1) All Abbreviations must be defined in their only first use in the manuscript then just employ their short Abr. (Check LQR, LQI, LQG in line 98, ANFIS in line 100, ...), also (There are two definitions for "Feedback linearization" such as FBLC in line 95 and FBL in line 101)

 2) In line 154, 165, 174, ...: Equations (2), (5), (8), ... must be updated with correct math operators instead of "p" or "𝑝𝑛".

 3) In line 158: What is the " Figure (b)! Do you mean "Figure 1(b)?

 4) In line 185: In Figure 1? or 2! where is the sector 1?

 5) Where did you explain the "New fuzzy controller"? All descriptions about FLC in Subsections 2.3 and 2.4 are standard one!

 6) The controller strategy is not completely explained!

 7) Simulation results are not so clear with sufficient discussion and high-resolution figures.

Author Response

Thank you, respected reviewer, for your detailed feedback on our manuscript to ensure its quality for publication. We have carefully followed the journal guidelines regarding figure placement. We acknowledge the importance of specifying explanations related to figures before their presentation, and we will make sure to address this in our manuscript. Your insight is invaluable to us, and we appreciate your guidance in enhancing the clarity of our work. Thank you once again for your valuable input.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall the structure of the article is good and the main findings are clear. Literature study is performed at acceptable level.

The drawbacks, that could be improved:

1) In the introduction there is a bit unlogical sentence:
"Secondly, to tackle the 121 challenges and issues, a new PMSM method has been introduced to get the optimized 122 performance as far as this research contributes to safer and more efficient electric locomo-123 tive operations, which is necessary for the future of coal mining."

I assume there is missing a word "control" between "PMSM" and "method", otherwise "a new permanent magnet synchronous motor method" would sound unlogical.

2) Figure 1. (a) probably should have 90 degrees angle between "d" and "q" axis. It is obvious, that it is not the case for this picture, and the angle is less than 90 deg.  

3) In Line 155 please explain, what is meant by "p-differential operator".

4) All equations should be in one style. If there is "italic" in eq. 10 and 11, then it should be the same, for example, for eq.9.

5) In fig.8. name of the "y" axis, the dimension unit is not written (amperes, kiloamperes?)

6) Line 413. It is not stated, which "Table"? Number is missing.

Author Response

Thank you, respected reviewer, for your detailed feedback on our manuscript to ensure its quality for publication. We have carefully followed the journal guidelines regarding figure placement. We acknowledge the importance of specifying explanations related to figures before their presentation, and we will make sure to address this in our manuscript. Your insight is invaluable to us, and we appreciate your guidance in enhancing the clarity of our work. Thank you once again for your valuable input.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors.

Thank you for the opportunity to read your article. This is an interesting and useful topic. Based on this article, I have the following suggestions:

1. The control strategy section should be enhanced in terms of the literature on F-PID for PMSM to improve the quality of this paper.
2. Section 2.3 must provide a clear and detailed explanation of the meanings of NB, NM, NS, ZO, PS, PM, and PB representing subsets for torque deviation (e) and deviation rate (ec) in Fuzzy Rules. Additionally, The significance, importance, and application of Figure 4 in this paper should be explicitly outlined to keep the audience well-informed and engaged. 
3. It is recommended that Chapter 2 include a flowchart explaining the operability of the proposed methods, which will facilitate readers' understanding of this paper.
4. Please explain the operation or principle of the F-PID double closed-loop vector control system for PMSM, why this method was chosen, and its advantages and disadvantages.
5. The experimental simulation parameters must be explained in the paper, making it difficult to understand the experiments and their differences from actual experiments.
6. There should be spacing between the figures in the text, and the resolution should be increased as some figures have missing parts. Please adjust accordingly.
7. Is there a comparison between theoretical simulation and practical verification of the proposed methods to verify the effectiveness and correctness of the simulation?
8. Finally, the chapter arrangement and discourse of the current manuscript should be strengthened. It is suggested that it be rearranged to enhance the readability of this paper.

 Thank you for your efforts and contributions. We look forward to seeing your revised and improved version of the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you, respected reviewer, for your detailed feedback on our manuscript to ensure its quality for publication. We have carefully followed the journal guidelines regarding figure placement. We acknowledge the importance of specifying explanations related to figures before their presentation, and we will make sure to address this in our manuscript. Your insight is invaluable to us, and we appreciate your guidance in enhancing the clarity of our work. Thank you once again for your valuable input.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Thank you, respected reviewer, for your detailed feedback on our manuscript to ensure its quality for publication. We have carefully followed the journal guidelines regarding figure placement. We acknowledge the importance of specifying explanations related to figures before their presentation, and we will make sure to address this in our manuscript. Your insight is invaluable to us, and we appreciate your guidance in enhancing the clarity of our work. Thank you once again for your valuable input.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors;

You did a great work! 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the author's response to the question, which indeed enhances the quality of this round of writing.