Integration of a Chassis Servo-Dynamometer and Simulation to Increase Energy Consumption Accuracy in Vehicles Emulating Road Routes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The authors present a test rig for testing the energy consumption of a model of an electric-powered car under simulated road driving conditions.
The manuscript is very interesting and relevant in view of the aspiration to improve the accuracy of test results of cars equipped with any type of drive (including electric drive), on chassis braking. However, in my opinion, the manuscript in this version should not be accepted for publication and needs improvement.
A general comment concerns the lack of axis descriptions on the diagrams, which limits the clarity of the reader's interpretation of the results. Many of the designations in the body of the manuscript are not explained, hence it would be beneficial to supplement their description, as well as to include a list of all abbreviations and designations used in the article.
The proposed model is not fully useful for analyzing the potential for energy recuperation in deceleration motion, as it is limited to positive values of torque on the engine.
Specific comments:
1) In the abstract, the authors should indicate what is new in the article.
2) Sentence a of the Abstract section is unintelligible: "This method reduces the error in energy consumption by inertial effects and negative slopes, showing 9.11% difference for the test route in comparison to total test energy." Relative to which alternative method was this 9.11% error difference determined?
3) Section 2 - Materials and methods: In Figure 1, during acceleration of the car, the inertial force Fi should be opposite to the direction of motion (to the acceleration vector). The rolling resistance force Fr should be marked on the wheels of both axles (not only on the wheels of the rear axle) - this remark also applies to Figure 2. In addition, the description of the force Fm, in the text, is missing.
4) Figure 2: In Figure 2(i), the force vector Fb should be opposite.
5) Table 2: What does the abbreviation BEV Sim stand for?
6) Equation (1): why do the authors introduce a new designation for the force Fw, which could be expressed as the driving force Fm?
7) Possibly also consider changing the designation of the force Fm in the figures, which appears as a driving force on the wheels and is associated, given the further equations, with a driving force on the engine.
8) Please standardize the brackets of units throughout the paper as () - for example, in Figure 3, the authors introduce units as [Nm] and [RPM]; while in Figure 4 (Nm) and (rpm).
9) It would be beneficial to carry out editorial and proofreading of the manuscript before publication (e.g., language errors: Figure 4: "Braking or regeneracion", Figure 5: "Dinamometer", Figure 7: "Calculate Internia Energy"; "Intertia energy"; Figure 12: "Dina"; Figure 13: "Dina";
10) Figure 6: At least two vertical axes would be beneficial for better readability. In addition, the description on the vertical axis is missing.
11) Figure 6: Please clarify the description of "Stops (B)."
12) Figure 6: Is the road slope value correct? In the diagram, the slope values reach approx. -18 degrees. Such values correspond to a road inclination of about 32%.
13) Page 12 line 12: What does the expression "python (3.9.3)" mean?
14) Section 2.3.1: It would be beneficial to supplement the formulas for the analyzed quantities in the research section, i.e.: Torque T2 Weel, Torque sum at wheel. In addition, it would be useful to supplement in the description of the research methodology, the analyzed driving cycles on the graphs of speed changes as a function of time.
15) Section 3.2.1 Figure 13 a: The range of the vertical axis (rpm) is incorrect - the range of RPM Torqumeter values is partially invisible, making it difficult to analyze the results. In addition, the legend should not obscure the course of the curves presented in the graphs.
16) Section 3.2.2 Figure 14 a: The range of the vertical axis (rpm) is incorrect - the range of RPM Torqumeter values is partially invisible, making it difficult to analyze the results. In addition, the legend should not obscure the course of the curves presented in the graphs (in Figure 14 b).
17) Page 19 Table 2: Please check the correctness of the values presented in the table. Are the same values of 292 kWh, for all energy components correct?
Best regards
Author Response
We thank the reviewer and editors for the chance and help at improving our article.
Please see the attachment for our response.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of this paper is interesting to the readers, within the scope of the journal, however prior its publication changes must be done.
The use of English must be improved. The paper includes several grammatical and syntax errors.
The Introduction must be revised. The authors must present the general research area to unfamiliar readers and at most to present the current state-of-the-art in order to show the contribution/novelty of their work. Authors must describe/analyse more the current mentioned references and must include many more related references, such as the following:
Vita V., Koumides P., Electric vehicles and distribution networks: Analysis on vehicle to grid and renewable energy sources integration, Proceedings of the 11th Electrical Engineering Faculty Conference (BulEF), Varna, Bulgaria, (DOI) 10.1109/BulEF48056.2019.9030787, 2019.A separate discussion section that will comment on the produced results must be included.
A Conclusions must be included that will summarize the work presented within the paper.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the recommendations given to improve our research article.
Please see the attachment for our response.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
It was my pleasure to review and evaluate work: “Integration of a chassis servo-dynamometer and simulation to increase energy consumption accuracy in vehicles emulating road routes” (Manuscript ID: wevj-1858559).
Manuscript is well constructed and clearly written. In terms of language I would only re-think the title of the article and correct one minor spelling mistake in the text: “enviroments” (page 10 line 4).
Work is very interesting however, I have several remarks regarding the paper which need to be addressed by the authors:
11) Page 2 line 4: CO2 is not acceptable representation of chemical formula for carbon dioxide please use correct index.
22) Page 5 equation (1): the Fa is not explained
33) Page 7 figure 4: regeneración?
44) The worst part of the work which in my opinion must be improved is the graphical representation of the data. Most of the axis in the presented figures are not described. It is hard to know which lines are for which values on the double y-axis. The chart legend is overlapping the data very often. In description of figure 14 you use A, B, C but the charts do not have those indications. This must be greatly improved before accepting this manuscript.
55) Page 19 Table 2: a yellow highlight was left
66) You decided to use a rear-wheel drive (RWD), what would be the prediction for the front-wheel drive (FWD) and four-wheel drive (4WD)
74) In your model you take into account the stable weather during the period of testing what will be the influence of the temperature and humidity during the day? Do you have any predictions about those parameters and their impact?
87) Finally what is missing is the so-called scientific discussion and comparison to other models which could be found for the energy consumption in the electrical vehicles.
At this point I would recommend the presented manuscript to undergo the major revision.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the kind words and the comments and suggestions made, which have greatly improve the article.
Please see the attachment for our response.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your detailed responses to my comments.
In my opinion, the article in this version can be accepted for publication in the World Electric Vehicle Journal.
Best regards
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have improved the paper.
It can be accepted for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors have provided a significant improvement in their work which is highly appreciated. This allows to accept the presented manuscript in its current form. I do not have any further comments or remarks.
