Comparative Study on Hybrid Excitation Flux Switching Motors without and with Variably Magnetizable Permanent Magnets for Electrified Vehicle Propulsion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with traction motors, that nowadays are very important for the evolution of electric vehicles. The core of the paper is the comparison of two kind of motors. Really appreciable is the experimental part, drawings, and figures. It s really centered to the scope of the journal!

Generally, it not common in scientific paper to use first person (I and we), but it could be ok.

Paper is well written, it is clear with a very good use of English, I saw few mistakes. It not common to review clear paper that manage so many variables and rich in considerations.

Abstract just draw the background, but, in my opinion, does not provide any “flash-forward”, in other words, from the abstract I don’t understand what you want to do, to demonstrate, to achieve.

In general, I had some problem understanding in some part of the paper, because I don’t have references to recap some considerations, e.g.: line 231 or in line 116.

I appreciate your sincerity when you highlight the positive and the negative part of your consideration and approach!

Probably I miss something, but there is something missing about the battery simulator. How do you develop it?

In electric traction motors supplied by batteries is very important electric breaking and regeneration. Can you discuss shortly about it? Provide some conclusion? Considerations?

In Figure 5, some area are signed as “C)” and with semi-transparent background. C) is related to the same C) in line 218?

The current depicted in red in figure 5 has a very high slope. I’m wondering about the voltage necessary to have this slope (V=L di/dt). Could you discuss about it?

What do you think about the role of resolver in this system? Could be slower or faster?

Design and Experimental Studies on HEFSM Employing Two Types of Permanent Magnets per Pole as Traction Motor for Automobile Applications is very important to understand this paper, because provide important remarks and consideration.

 

Do you think it could be out of scope to dedicate few words about the cost of “adding” VM-PM?

 

Please be more accurate in table 8 and 7. Try also to make these tables  more self explained.

 

Some specific errors/omissions/mistake:

Abstract, please define mmf (the same at line 30). In general, it is better to define the acronymous.

back-EMF or back-emf? Please be self-consistent.

Line 109 Fabrivated.

Line 139, = is not necessary.

Could you bring some reference for line 172? Datasheet for exemples.

Line 481-494? Empty?

See lines 502-513.

Table 5:  star appear in the table… what is the meaning? A missing reference?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presented a very interesting subject, the paper well structured and the idea well presented but I have the following question: 

1* The paper needs more results (Figures) regarding the behaviors of the proposed high-efficiency traction motor ( Mechanical and Electrical behaviors), with different operating conditions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Very well-written paper. The concept is very interesting. And, the results are supported by a comparison to conventional designs as well as experimental work. The paper can be accepted with its present form. One minor suggestion is to discuss a bit more about the limitation/complexity in terms of real application.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf