Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents electro-thermal modelling of a traction motors' drive.

comments:

- The abstract of the paper should follow an imrad structure and the end of the abstract should point out a more specific result of the research, please be more concrete and avoid those words, like  'satisfactory'.

• The introduction of the paper should be shown the motivation of the proposed research. It shows the importance of the topic, in a very general way. However, this part contains very very few citations. More citations should be added to highlight the problem and the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed solution.
• This part is missing from the paper, without this hard to understand the novelty of the paper. What is the difference and advantage of the proposed electro-thermal simulation?
• The paper contains very low-quality pictures which should be improved.
• The conclusion is too general it should summarize something about the findings of the paper and show the future research direction.

 

Author Response

We would like first to thank you for the valuable time you have dedicated for our paper. We have carefully considered all of your constructive comments and we have fully and properly addressed to all of your concerns. Your suggestions and remarks have really helped us to improve the quality of the work.

Following are the major changes that have been done in the revised manuscript in order to fulfill your queries. We hope we have complied to the recommendations and our paper is fit publication now.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this work, the simulation of traction chains is analyzed in terms of temperature and electric variables. Although the work is somehow interesting, the contribution and the novelty are not clear. Besides, the applicability or its implementation in real conditions could be weak due to the simplified models.  

Authors claim “we introduce two different traction chains dedicated to the electric vehicle”, are they new/novel?

The state of the art is not well-reviewed. There are no recent works about traction chains, electrical and thermal studies, converters, semiconductor models, etc. Thus, the contribution is not clear.

There is no new PV modeling, motor modeling, semiconductor modeling, converter modeling.

In Figure 5, settings are unreadable. Also, they are not justified. Why those values? What about other values?

Is the contribution of your work the simulated circuit shown in Figure 5? Please mention and justify clearly the novelties

Improve the quality of figures, e.g., Figure 3 is unreadable. Text/symbols of figures are not described. Figure 23 does not mention the color meaning, nor labels for the axis.

Several figures are not mentioned/discussed in the text.

Results of Figures  7 -13 are not discussed. Are the results good (in terms of what? Versus what?)? Why do you use 45 and 90 C?

The power used for motors is very low, conventional values have to be used.

In Figure 14, why is the performance lower with a cooling system?

What is the goal of showing the IGBT module in Figure 16 (your results are based on a simulation)?  

It is not clear the use of equations 1 and 2.

Conclusions are somehow simple. First paragraph: Models of Diode and IGBT are already presented in other works. Second paragraph: two classical machines are used (it does not represent novelty). The traction chain model is classical, there is no contribution. Third paragraph: simulation cost is discussed but it is not presented in quantitative terms.  In fact, there is no comparison The improvement of efficiency is direct under the experimental conditions presented in your work (the cooling system improves efficiency).

The References section has to be improved and updated.

Author Response

We would like first to thank you for the valuable time you have dedicated for our paper. We have carefully considered all of your constructive comments and we have fully and properly addressed to all of your concerns. Your suggestions and remarks have really helped us to improve the quality of the work.

Following are the major changes that have been done in the revised manuscript in order to fulfill your queries. We hope we have complied to the recommendations and our paper is fit publication now.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I think State of the Art needs to be improved. Also, out of the 13 bibliographic references, 5 are references to their own authors' papers. I think the bibliography must also be improved and the analysis of the results must be improved by comparison with other works. Figures 3 and 5 are unclear.

Author Response

We would like first to thank you for the valuable time you have dedicated for our paper. We have carefully considered all of your constructive comments and we have fully and properly addressed to all of your concerns. Your suggestions and remarks have really helped us to improve the quality of the work.

Following are the major changes that have been done in the revised manuscript in order to fulfill your queries. We hope we have complied to the recommendations and our paper is fit publication now.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

 The paper improved a lot, the abstract was rewritten and the introduction changed a lot, this can be acceptable, however some more citations and the description of some novel methods, like some more advanced numerical methods should be cited in the future and the quality of the images can be improved. But altogether, the paper can be acceptable now.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your positive comment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Many comments/suggestions/issues have been addressed; yet, others are still unclear.

 

1.- Authors claim “we introduce two different traction chains dedicated to the electric vehicle”, are they new/novel?

Answer:

The design of two chains is not new, it is the classic design but the novelty is the use of the models developed from the diode and the IGBT which dyed in accounts of the thermal effect which directly related to the output of the system.

 

SECOND REVIEW: According to your answer, sentence of question 1 is wrong, then it has to be changed.

 

2) The state of the art is not well-reviewed. There are no recent works about traction chains, electrical and thermal studies, converters, semiconductor models, etc. Thus, the contribution is not clear.

Answer:

We added t three paragraphs in the introduction where we mentioned the advantages of our model.

SECOND REVIEW: Paragraphs are only text (not comparable information) if references to other works are not used.

3) There is no new PV modeling, motor modeling, semiconductor modeling, converter modeling.

Answer:

Mainly we developed two new semiconductor models.  

SECOND REVIEW: On the one hand, the modeling presented in your work for the semiconductors is not clearly presented; on the other hand (most important), it cannot be your contribution because it was presented in other works (please check your references)!

 

4) In Figure 5, settings are unreadable. Also, they are not justified. Why those values? What about other values?

Answer:

We modified the figure 5.

SECOND REVIEW: Some questions have not been answered. In addition, figures are still unreadable (axis labels); as suggestion, use other software to manually edit the labels of your figures.

 

10) What is the goal of showing the IGBT module in Figure 16 (your results are based on a simulation)?

Answer:

We have shown the IGBT module to first show that our simulation is valid with a discrete model or with an IGBT module. Second to show the actual simulation with an inverter

SECOND REVIEW: How do you valid the simulation? Measurement equipment is not shown. Please add a picture to show the measurement of physical variables and other figure to compare the obtained results.

SECOND REVIEW: In general, many questions have responses, however nothing is added/changed in the article (the responses are only for the Reviewer or to improve quality and clarity of the article?). Changes have to be carried out in the article for other readers (if this Reviewer had doubts, other readers also can).

Author Response

We would like first to thank you for the valuable time you have dedicated for our paper. We have carefully considered all of your constructive comments and we have revised the manuscript according to your comments. Your suggestions and remarks have really helped us to improve the quality of the work.

Below, we illustrate the major changes done in the revised version.

All the modifications are written in green.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Yes, the authors responded to most of the comments. However, I still have an observation. Figure 3 appears to be incomplete. there is no notation on figure 3.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive comment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf