Calculation and Analysis of Unbalanced Magnetic Pull of Rotor under Motor Air Gap Eccentricity Fault

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is mainly theoretical.

Several calculation methods (linear and non-linear calculation) of unbalanced magnetic pull (UMP) of rotor are presented (modelling, simulation, comparisons).

The paper ends with conclusions, which I consider interesting.

Remarks:

- to increase the consistency of the paper, experimental results (minimal) can be shown to confirm at least part of the conclusions obtained through simulation (if possible);

- the bibliography can be improved with IEEE international papers, published recently.

It is proposed to accept the paper after modifications.

Author Response

1. To increase the consistency of the paper, experimental results (minimal) can be shown to confirm at least part of the conclusions obtained through simulation (if possible):

The minimum values of the experimental results are all at the characteristic frequencies (0Hz, 50Hz, 100Hz), as shown in the paper.

2. The bibliography can be improved with IEEE international papers, published recently.

We have replaced references 7, 10, and 12 with recent IEEE publications.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The main aim of the paper lays on the estimation of UMP under the three eccentricity modes. The UMP is estimated by utilizing different analytical methodologies and to two different FEM models. For this reviewer, it is difficult to identify the main novel contribution of the work since UMP estimation is well known and established in literature. The authors perform their calculations by utilizing non-original methodologies and thus, the work could be considered more of a comparative analysis between UMP estimation techniques. Find below further critical points and comments of the work:

1 – Clearly identify the main original contribution of the paper in the Abstract and in the introduction

2 – Why do you utilize two different FEM approaches? Justify appropriately

3 – In the comparison tables (lines 355, 357, 359), which methodology is utilized for each result? (i.e., Electromagnetic FEM vs Energy method?)

4 – Figure 7 must be zoomed in to show relevant information.

5 – Which are the different eccentricity levels in figure 10?

6 – English should be further polished, and some sentences improved in order to achieve an acceptable clarity and readability level

Author Response

Response to Composition Comments

Reviewer:

1. Clearly identify the main original contribution of the paper in the Abstract and in the introduction.

    Thank you for your suggestion. We have already clarified the original contribution of the article in the abstract and introduction.  We have modified according to the suggestion, and line 140-142 on page 4 has been highlighted in blue.

2. Why do you utilize two different FEM approaches? Justify appropriately.

      Thank you for your suggestion. This article uses two analysis methods to calculate the unbalanced magnetic pull force on the rotor. The first method is to use numerical analysis, which establishes the dynamic equation of the rotor and utilizes Newmark- β Numerical integration method is used to solve the unbalanced magnetic pull on the rotor; Another approach is to establish a motor model in Maxwell finite element software and solve for the unbalanced magnetic pull received by the rotor.

3. ln the comparison tables (lines 355, 357, 359), which methodology is utilized for each result?(i.e, Electromagnetic FEM vs Energy method?)

      Thank you for your suggestion. We have explained the results of the energy method and FEM in the table. We have modified according to the suggestion, and line 402-406 on page 16 has been highlighted in blue.

4. Figure 7 must be zoomed in to show relevant information. 

        Thank you for your suggestion. Yes, We have zoomed Figure 7 in the article. We have modified according to the suggestion, and line 299 on page 11 has been highlighted in blue. 

5. Which are the different eccentricity levels in figure 10?

Thank you for your suggestion. Different eccentricity levels refer to the ratio of the distance of air gap eccentricity to the length of normal air gap, which has been supplemented in the text. We have modified according to the suggestion, and line 336-337 on page 12 has been highlighted in blue.

6. English should be further polished, and some sentences improved in order to achieve an acceptable clarity and readability level.

    Thank you for your suggestion. We have modified according to the suggestion, and all the modifications has been highlighted in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All my queries have been addressed. However, I still find difficult to understand the links between the two Finite Element Simulation (sections 3.1 and 3.2). Moreover, it is the first time I see the word " finite Metacomputing" in this field. Good luck in your future endeavors.

Author Response

Response to Composition Comments

Reviewer:

1. Clearly identify the main original contribution of the paper in the Abstract and in the introduction.

    Thank you for your suggestion. We have already clarified the original contribution of the article in the abstract and introduction. We have modified according to the suggestion, and line 140-142 on page 4 has been highlighted in blue.

2. Why do you utilize two different FEM approaches? Justify appropriately.

      Thank you for your suggestion. This article uses two analysis methods to calculate the unbalanced magnetic pull force on the rotor. The first method is to use numerical analysis, which establishes the dynamic equation of the rotor and utilizes Newmark- β Numerical integration method is used to solve the unbalanced magnetic pull on the rotor; Another approach is to establish a motor model in Maxwell finite element software and solve for the unbalanced magnetic pull received by the rotor.

3. ln the comparison tables (lines 355, 357, 359), which methodology is utilized for each result?(i.e, Electromagnetic FEM vs Energy method?)

        Thank you for your suggestion. We have explained the results of the energy method and FEM in the table. We have modified according to the suggestion, and line 402-406 on page 16 has been highlighted in blue.

4. Figure 7 must be zoomed in to show relevant information. 

        Thank you for your suggestion. Yes, We have zoomed Figure 7 in the article. We have modified according to the suggestion, and line 299 on page 11 has been highlighted in blue. 

5. Which are the different eccentricity levels in figure 10? 

        Thank you for your suggestion. Different eccentricity levels refer to the ratio of the distance of air gap eccentricity to the length of normal air gap, which has been supplemented in the text. We have modified according to the suggestion, and line 336-337 on page 12 has been highlighted in blue.

6. English should be further polished, and some sentences improved in order to achieve an acceptable clarity and readability level.

    Thank you for your suggestion. We have modified according to the suggestion, and all the modifications has been highlighted in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf