Cogging Torque Reduction in PMSM in Wide Temperature Range by Response Surface Methodology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The manuscript "Cogging Torque Reduction of PMSM in Wide Temperature Range by Response Surface Methodology" by Duan et al. discusses the simulation, optimization, execution and tests of wide temperature range permanent magnet synchronous motor. It is a very practical research with clear industrial application presented by the Authors in chapter Introduction. In my opinion some parts of the article should be improved, and thus major corrections should be implemented before considering the work for publication.

Evaluation of the paper general remarks:

• The Abstract section should present quantitative results and not only the most important qualitative results and/or generic considerations.  In my opinion the specific research results contained in the article are missing. Therefore, significant improvements are expected.
• From the description in the first chapter it is not clear what is new in the presented article. There is also no broader description of the existing solutions. Please, modify the chapter Introduction to provide a detailed description of the existing solutions regarding the topic of the article.
• In line 222, the Authors use the personal form ("…we can get..."). This is not correct in high-quality articles. It suggests modifying this part of the article.
• The test results available in the literature should be specifically referred to Authors results (mainly optimization result in wide temperature range). When the results are not discussed and conveniently supported by the open literature, questionable conclusions are obtained. Currently, the article looks more like a  report from tests than a scientific article. Significant improvement in the description of the results is required.
• Research articles should present the directions of further research. I suggest adding one paragraph in the conclusion chapter.
• Please read the instructions on how to describe the references at the end of the article in the authors' guide and change it. Currently, the references at the end of the text are not in line with the journal requirements.

Specific remarks/editorial comments/typos:

• keywords should be written in small letters, please carefully read the file instruction for authors,
• line 70 - is motor; should be motor.,
• line 105 - is Electromagnetic, should be electromagnetic,
• line 120 - is [14-15], should be [14,15], the same remark for line 348,
• line 134 - is Fig.1., should be Figure 1, the same remark applies to lines: 201, 236, 262, 269, 276, 298, 319, 379, 415, 429, 431, 432, 442, 443, 461,
• line 134 - Why in this line is Table I, If below is Table 1? The same remark for line 406. In my opinion, according to the instructions for authors, it should be Table 1,
• line 136 - Figure caprion. Please check the instructions for the authors again. Only If the caption has one line should be centered. If the Figure caption contains more than one line, a different text formatting style applies (text justification). Also at the end of the caption dot is missing. The same remark is for all Figures i.e. line 300, Figure 7.
• Table 1 (line 137) and Table 2 (line 412) - in accordance with the instructions for authors, column headings should be bold,
• line 137 - Table caption - the same remark as for Figure caption, 
• line 146 - is materials , should be materials, please remove the space,
• in many places of the text, no punctuation mark ends before the text equations, i.e. line 158, 178, 182, 216 and others. In my opinion, there should be a colon before the equation and at the end of the text. Please check all the manuscript,
• line 260 and 261 - Figure caption, once again pleas read instruction for authors: "...If there are multiple panels, they should be listed as: (a) Description of what is contained in the first panel; (b) Description of what is contained in the second panel...", the same remark for Figure 9 and 10,
• line 320 - Figure 8 is not readable, please insert a larger Figure,
• line 409 - is materials.When, should be materials. When, the space is missing,
• line 469 - is 4.06kN., should be 4.06 kN.,
• line 470 - is 0.61N.m, should be 0.61 N.m,

The article requires the above major changes. I hope these suggestions can help to improve the quality of this paper.

I wish you all the best.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting, well structural and mathematically and experimentally grounded. It is recommended for new data to allow the constructive and functional optimization of the proposed equipment.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thanks for addressing the comments. The minor revision is required.

for Figure 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 please change the Figure caption, there should be only a letter under the Figure, e.g. (a) and the caption should be moved to main capture i.e. "Figure 11. Performance of the final SmCo28 PMSM in wide temperature range; (a) wave of no-load back EMF of phase A; (b) wave of torque, (c) wave of cogging torque.".

I wish You all the best.

Best regards

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc