Automated Monitoring of the Uniform Demagnetization Faults in Permanent-Magnet Synchronous Motors: Practical Methods and Challenges
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article provides a literature review of demagnetization faults detection methods in PMSMs. The topic is relevant since PMSMs are widely used in many applications and may face demagnetization as a result of harsh operational conditions such as high ambient temperature and heavy loads.
The article does not address a specific gap in the field because it is a review article and results of the study conducted by the authors are not presented.
The reference list and literature review are good enough.
The article does not consist of any quantitative results, only qualitative ones. Therefore, the value of the article is very questionable. It is not clear, how the presented brief description of various methods can help specialists in this field. It would be perfect if the authors include some numerical results which showcase the comparative effectiveness of the reviewed methods, where it is applicable and possible to compare and demonstrate.
Also, the reviewer can recommend rechecking of text formatting: lines 46, 102, 166, .... (space); lines 53, line 66, 178, 194, 234, 250, ..... (extra dot).
Author Response
Reviewer #1:
Q: The article provides a literature review of demagnetization faults detection methods in PMSMs. The topic is relevant since PMSMs are widely used in many applications and may face demagnetization as a result of harsh operational conditions such as high ambient temperature and heavy loads.
A: Thank you for this comment.
Q: The article does not address a specific gap in the field because it is a review article and results of the study conducted by the authors are not presented.
A: The specific gap in the field has been stated, and the study by the authors has been added to the revised manuscript.
Q: The reference list and literature review are good enough.
A: Thank you for this comment.
Q: The article does not consist of any quantitative results, only qualitative ones. Therefore, the value of the article is very questionable. It is not clear, how the presented brief description of various methods can help specialists in this field. It would be perfect if the authors included some numerical results that showcase the comparative effectiveness of the reviewed methods, where it is applicable and possible to compare and demonstrate.
A: The numerical results of the reviewed methods, have been added to the revised manuscript.
Q: Also, the reviewer can recommend rechecking of text formatting: lines 46, 102, 166, .... (space); lines 53, line 66, 178, 194, 234, 250, ..... (extra dot).
A: The format of the text has been carefully checked.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors summarized the current methods and challenges of the demagnetization faults in permanent magnet synchronous motors. In general, the manuscript is well organized and clearly written. I think it can be accepted for publication after addressed the following comments:
1. The introduction section needs to be reinforced by adding a paragraph to introduce the working mechanism background of the permanent magnet synchronous motors.
2. In the section 2.1 (Background), please explain the details of the distortion of the EMF.
3. In the Current or voltage injection estimation section, line 215, please avoid using repetitive phrases.
4. line 220, please indicate what is non-invasive method.
5. line 257, please combine these bullets expression into one paragraph, which will be consistent with previous sections.
6. line 295, please define the magnetic saturation effects.
7. section 2.6, please give a brief how does the Luenberger observer work.
8. line 411, same as line 257, please combine these bullets into one paragraph.
9. Line 485, please explain Kalman filter in details.
10. Line 557, please define the AIWPSO algorithm, and how does it work.
11. Line 602, please combine the bullets.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript is well organized and clearly written. Overall English is clear and right.
Author Response
Reviewer #2:
Q: The authors summarized the current methods and challenges of the demagnetization faults in permanent magnet synchronous motors. In general, the manuscript is well-organized and clearly written. I think it can be accepted for publication after addressing the following comments:
A: Thank you for this comment.
Q: The introduction section needs to be reinforced by adding a paragraph to introduce the working mechanism background of the permanent magnet synchronous motors.
A: The introduction section has been revised accordingly.
Q: In section 2.1 (Background), please explain the details of the distortion of the EMF.
A: The details of the distortion of the EMF has been explained.
Q: In the Current or voltage injection estimation section, line 215, please avoid using repetitive phrases.
A: The repetition of the expression has been eliminated.
Q: line 220, please indicate what is a non-invasive method.
A: The definition of the non-invasive method has been introduced in the revised manuscript.
Q: line 257, please combine these bullet expressions into one paragraph, which will be consistent with previous sections.
A: These bullets expressions have been merged into one paragraph.
Q: line 295, please define the magnetic saturation effects.
A: The definition of the magnetic saturation effects has been addedin in the revised manuscript.
Q: In section 2.6, please give a brief on how the Luenberger observer works.
A: The brief introduction of the Luenberger observer works has been added in the revised manuscript.
Q: line 411, same as line 257, please combine these bullets into one paragraph.
A: These bullets expressions have been merged into one paragraph.
Q: Line 485, please explain Kalman filter in detail.
A: The brief introduction of the Kalman filter has been added in the revised manuscript.
Q: Line 557, please define the AIWPSO algorithm, and how it works.
A: The brief introduction of the AIWPSO algorithm has been added in the revised manuscript.
Q: Line 602, please combine the bullets.
A: These bullets expressions have been merged into one paragraph.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article was improved significantly, however, some quantitative performance criteria of the different methods are still absent...
Line 71 - ??? symbols
Author Response
Reviewer #1
Q: The article was improved significantly, however, some quantitative performance criteria of the different methods are still absent...
R: A short paragraph has been added in the revised manuscript to present the quantitative performance criteria.
Q: Line 71 - ??? symbols
R: Thank you very much for your careful reviewing. We have carefully checked the manuscript to avoid the typos.
