Design and Implementation of Improved Gate Driver Circuit for Sensorless Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor Control
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The manuscript is well-written, has an important research message, and should be of great interest to the readers. However, the results are not well presented and the statistical analysis would probably need to be revised. The contributions of the paper are not clearly stated. Therefore, some concerns should be addressed to improve the quality of the manuscript:
1. Most of the text of the abstract is devoted to the introduction and the contributions of the article are not explained. In the abstract, the authors often talk about related work and immediately jump into the achievements without mentioning the contributions of their paper. It is necessary to first summarize and shorten the introduction and immediately focus on the contributions of the article.
2. Quantitative results and achievements should be presented at the end of the abstract
The title of the article is too long and it is necessary to shorten it and remove additional information in the title. In addition, putting an end point at the end of the title is wrong.
3. Redraft the Introduction section with background, challenges, motivations, literature survey, contributions/novelties, and the organization of the paper. Almost all the literature survey references must be published last 3 years.
4. Main Contributions of the manuscript should be provided in the bullet form at the end of the introduction section
5. Try to maintain the workflow of the article (especially during transitions between sections/ sub-sections) to improve the quality of writing.
6. Figures 1, 5, 7, 8 , 9, 10 are very small and/or are not clear and the text in the figure is not readable. Redraw the figures so that the quality being improved.
7. There are many irrelevant contents in the article that need to be removed. Especially the content that is related to explaining the basics of the subject and comparing the methods is similar to a book chapter and should be removed and focus on the main content.
8. Is PMSM Mathematical Model for Back-EMF Estimation is done by your own knowledge? Such information are available in the books and it is not necessary to present them as its present detailed format (about three pages are dedicated to this issue).
9. It is necessary to present a table and compare all the reviewed methods in terms of different parameters.
10. Try to include the sensitivity analysis of the system to justify the performance of the proposed system. Especially by changing the number of parameters' values and changing them, try to do sensitivity analysis.
11. Please redraft the entire manuscript with a thorough proofread of the article to rectify some existing typos and grammatical mistakes.
12. Remove extra and irrelevant content from the text of the manuscript and focus only on the main and central topic
13. The author should explain more why the solution quality of their proposed approach is much better than the others. Authors need to explain the accuracy, sufficiency, and reliability of their results. How do they verify and validate the results?
14. The authors don't discuss the limitations of the study correctly.
15. The most important results obtained for future research horizons should be presented at the end of the conclusion, not some unrelated ones mentioned.
16. The authors need to explain the computation complexity of their method, and the time and spatial complexities and compare them to those of other state-of-the-art ones.
17. Some related ideas should be added to the body of the manuscript. Specially refer to nonflat surface level pyramid: A high connectivity multidimensional interconnection network powerful method for improving the computation time and performance of the proposed approach.
18. Authors need to explain the accuracy, sufficiency, and reliability of their results. How do they verify and validate the results?
19. References for 2022 and 2023 are few. The article to be published in 2023 should mainly include articles from the last 3 years. Update references
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer 1,
On behalf of both the authors, I would like to convey my sincere thanks for your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments and concern (response to reviewers), (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating changes.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
<Indra Ferdiansyah> et al.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.The introduction of the manuscript places too much emphasis on fundamental concepts, neglecting a comprehensive discussion of the advantages and challenges in the prior research related to the optimization of sensorless motor control system, switch loss, and the combination of both, which is the main focus of this paper.
2.The relationship between sensorless motor control system and switch loss is simply analyzed in the experimental part according to the experimental results, and the relationship between the two is lacking in the previous part.
3.The experimental results lack a comparative analysis between the estimated rotor position and actual rotor position errors for sensorless motor control system.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageA grammatical issue is identified in line 122. It is advised that the author carefully revises this section to rectify the grammar problem.
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer 2,
On behalf of both the authors, I would like to convey my sincere thanks for your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments and concern (response to reviewers), (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating changes.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
<Indra Ferdiansyah> et al.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is about design gate driver circuit for PSMS control by experiment. In this paper, GDC with capacitance is compared with GDC with ringing suppression circuit. How define component values that are used in the experiment?
The back EMF observer method for sensorless motor control performs poorly at low speeds and a standstill. So please explain how to use the start-up method and how to get the theta value.
In the proposed method, please add a block diagram of the proposed sensorless speed control to illustrate that system.
In the study of the gate driver circuits, there are some important things to consider, and one of them is a time delay, please show the time delay between PWM generation and PWM signal for the inverter.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe presentation of this paper is good and the results describe clearly
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer 3,
On behalf of both the authors, I would like to convey my sincere thanks for your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments and concern (response to reviewers), (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating changes.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
<Indra Ferdiansyah> et al.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. This paper introduces both drive circuit(hardware) and sensorless control (software). Although the content is sufficient, the paper does not look logical because they seem to be combined. For a paper, one critical point needs to be focused on.
2. The novelties and contributions are questionable, because many existing or common techniques are introduced.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is pretty good but requires careful proofreading.
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer 4,
On behalf of both the authors, I would like to convey my sincere thanks for your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments and concern (response to reviewers), (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating changes.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
<Indra Ferdiansyah> et al.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAlmost all the comments have been well addressed and incorporated into revised version of the manuscript; however some minor corrections still remained:
Some typos should be double-checked.
There are still some grammatical errors that should be addressed.
The quality of the figures should be improved, especially improve the quality of figures 6 and 7.
Refer to some related references from MDPI, especially refer to " A New Voltage-Multiplier-Based Power Converter Configuration Suitable for Renewable Energy Sources and Sustainability Applications"
Also should refer to some literature that provides similar ideas for using modern control methods such as MPC. Specially refer to "a novel control strategy based on an adaptive fuzzy model predictive control for frequency regulation of a microgrid with Uncertain and time-varying parameters
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are still some grammatical errors that should be addressed.
Author Response
Respected Reviewer 1,
Thank you for your comments. On behalf of both the authors, we appreciate for your precious time in reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable comments. It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. We have carefully reviewed the comments and thoroughly revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner below. We have submitted a revised version of our manuscript. All the changes are marked in yellow color. All page and line numbers, used in the author’s responses, refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes. We, also, have improved the readability of the paper by editing the English language and style in the revised manuscript. The file of the revised manuscript is attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe structure of the paper is rigorous and much clearer after modification, but there are still some small problems:
Some pictures are not clear enough, such as Figure 3 and Figure 4;
Comments on the Quality of English LanguagePay attention to grammar mistakes.
Author Response
Respected Reviewer 2,
Thank you for your comments. On behalf of both the authors, we appreciate for your precious time in reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable comments. It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. We have carefully reviewed the comments and thoroughly revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner below. We have submitted a revised version of our manuscript. All the changes are marked in yellow color. All page and line numbers, used in the author’s responses, refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes. We, also, have improved the readability of the paper by editing the English language and style in the revised manuscript. The file of the revised manuscript is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no more comments.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI have no more comments.
Author Response
Respected Reviewer 4,
Thank you for your suggestion. On behalf of both the authors, we appreciate for your precious time and efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We have improved the readability of the paper by editing the English language and style in the revised manuscript. The file of the revised manuscript is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
