Transient Analysis of Fault-Induced Delayed Voltage Recovery by Mathematical Modeling of a Three-Phase Induction Motor

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a detailed mathematical procedure for implementing a three-phase  induction motor model. The proposed model demonstrates an accurate representation of the dynamic behavior of three- phase induction motors under both transient and steady-state conditions.

1. Please provide more detailed comparisons between the proposed model and existing models.

2. Please provide more details about the proposed model so that readers can replicate the results and can apply the model in their research.

3. The problem that the authors aim to solve should be clearly illustrated. In my opinion, the contribution of the paper is not well-presented.

4. The load bus is also connected to electronic equipment. Would none of this equipment impact the proposed model?

Author Response

Subject: Response to the Reviewer’s Comments on the Manuscript Transient analysis of fault-induced delayed voltage recovery by mathematical modeling of a three-phase induction motor.

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript titled “Transient analysis of fault-induced delayed voltage recovery by mathematical modeling of a three-phase induction motor.” We value your comments and suggestions, which have been very helpful in improving the quality of our work. In this response, we address each of your comments in detail and explain the changes made to the manuscript. 1. Please provide more detailed comparisons between the proposed model and existing models: In Section 3.2, entitled "Validation of the Implemented Model" (277–371), a comparison of the model with Zixiao Ma (18) and Kyle Stewart [4] can be found. 2. Please provide more details about the proposed model so that readers can replicate the results and can apply the model in their research: It is noteworthy that the model is thoroughly delineated in its mathematical representation, as exhibited in Equations 1–4. The block diagram is displayed in Figure 2. However, a more detailed explanation is provided by including additional content on the representation of the motor's mechanical torque in Section 2.2 (183–197), as well as illustrating the model construction process in Figure 5. 3. The problem that the authors aim to solve should be clearly illustrated. In my opinion, the contribution of the paper is not well-presented: The introduction has been updated; it is suggested that readers review it from 79 to 95 to ascertain the objective. 4. The load bus is also connected to electronic equipment. Would none of this equipment impact the proposed model?: The present study focuses exclusively on the model of three-phase motors A, B, and C. However, the analysis of electronic equipment falls outside the objectives of the present study. However, it is a study that will be considered in future work.

King regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper studies a detailed mathematical procedure for implementing a three-phase induction motor model. The problems are as follows.

1.  The introduction part should be expanded, the current studies and results of other papers should be mentioned more.

2. What is the novelty of this paper, it also should be emphasised in introduction part.

3. In table 2, the parameters are used for validation. What if the paramters varied？ Namely, how is the robustness of the proposed model in this paper.

4. More simulation cases can be added for verification.

5. The conclusions can be rewritten. 

Author Response

Subject: Response to the Reviewer’s Comments on the Manuscript Transient analysis of fault-induced delayed voltage recovery by mathematical modeling of a three-phase induction motor.

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript titled “Transient analysis of fault-induced delayed voltage recovery by mathematical modeling of a three-phase induction motor.” We value your comments and suggestions, which have been very helpful in improving the quality of our work. In this response, we address each of your comments in detail and explain the changes made to the manuscript. 1. The introduction part should be expanded, the current studies and results of other papers should be mentioned more: The introduction has been updated(14-103) 2. What is the novelty of this paper, it also should be emphasised in introduction part; The content of the Introduction has been expanded in the subsequent lines (82–103), where the contributions of the work are presented. 3. In table 2, the parameters are used for validation. What if the parameters varied？ Namely, how is the robustness of the proposed model in this paper: An analysis of the implemented motor model is conducted in relation to variations in the type of motor. This analysis can be reviewed in Section 2.1, entitled "Composite Load Model WECC" (105–124). Additionally, adjustments have been made in Section 2.4, "Validation of the Implemented Model" (225–256). 4. More simulation cases can be added for verification: Adjustments have been made. Simulation cases are conducted, analyzing the model under parameter variation (226–236), motor load variation (237–248), and variation in the magnitude of the applied disturbance voltage (249–256). The simulation results are presented in (257–400). 5. The conclusions can be rewritten: The conclusions have been rewritten (401–438).

King regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well written. The authors have walked through the design of the research very well. Here is my feedback for this article:

1. The introduction section introduces the need for modeling of a 3-phase induction motor but it needs to further analyze the current literature in addition to the WECC model. The background and need are validated but the literature review can be improved in this section by covering analysis of the work in 3-phase motor simulation research.

2. Section 2 is adequately covered. No comments for improvement on this one.

3. In section 3, the authors have validated their model by analyzing its behavior to the results obtained in the simulation study in reference 21. However, this paper was introduced as comparing their model to various other 5th order models to show improvements in analysis over other data. Comparison to a single reference does not display the authors’ model’s improvement over other models. I recommend comparing results from at least 3 different research models to show the improvement. 

4. Section 4 should cover the limitations of this model in addition to the verification of the model. 

Author Response

Subject: Response to the Reviewer’s Comments on the Manuscript Transient analysis of fault-induced delayed voltage recovery by mathematical modeling of a three-phase induction motor.

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript titled “Transient analysis of fault-induced delayed voltage recovery by mathematical modeling of a three-phase induction motor.” We value your comments and suggestions, which have been very helpful in improving the quality of our work. In this response, we address each of your comments in detail and explain the changes made to the manuscript. 1. The introduction section introduces the need for modeling of a 3-phase induction motor but it needs to further analyze the current literature in addition to the WECC model. The background and need are validated but the literature review can be improved in this section by covering analysis of the work in 3-phase motor simulation research: The introduction has been updated(14-103) 2. Section 2 is adequately covered. No comments for improvement on this one: We appreciate your feedback and value your opinion on our work. 3. In section 3, the authors have validated their model by analyzing its behavior to the results obtained in the simulation study in reference 21. However, this paper was introduced as comparing their model to various other 5th order models to show improvements in analysis over other data. Comparison to a single reference does not display the authors’ model’s improvement over other models. I recommend comparing results from at least 3 different research models to show the improvement.: The section entitled "Results and Discussion" has undergone an update. 4. Section 4 should cover the limitations of this model in addition to the verification of the model. The conclusion section has been revised, and the limitations section has been incorporated (401–450).

King regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been revised，it can be accepted now.