A Disturbance Sliding Mode Observer Designed for Enhancing the LQR Current-Control Scheme of a Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGenerally the paper is well structured and the logic is clear. The proposed work is of significance and I recommend the acceptance of the paper subject to a minor revision. Specific comments for the authors are as follows.
1) I suggest that the authors change the title of section 5.1 by deleting the word "experiment". To the reviewer's understanding, such section is about the simulation.
2) The simulating results and the experimental results are illustrated in two sections, while I think putting the simulating and the experimental results together for a comparison would be better for the comprehension of the readers.
3) It would be better to calculate the errors abetween the simulating results and the experimental results. Also, discussion on the comparison among the theretical conclusion, the simulated data, and the tested results would be helpful to show the correctness.
4) Is it possible to compare the proposed method with other methods?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccording to Authors presented paper presented mainly current control method for permanent magnet synchronous motors (PMSM) using the disturbance sliding mode observer (DSMO) in conjunction with the linear quadratic regulator (LQR). In my opinion, the work is multi-threaded, and it is worth to emphasis:
- Decoupled model of PMSM, with removal of nonlinarities and treating them as divergences, (it is worth expanding the references),
- Original solution and tuning method of Sliding Mode Observer, if the method is original, it is suitable for a separate paper (idea, analysis, P solution convergence proof, tuning method with variants and sensitivity),
- LQR controller with nonlinearities decoupling, the question arises to what extent the discrepancies constitute a discrepancy from the quality indicator J,
The work requires refinement from a reference point of view. The current form gives the impression that all solutions are the exact solutions of the authors and only the authors.
The object appears to be distinctive. Assuming very low resistance in the physical solution, the object can be treated as close to the integrating object. As a result of such a procedure, the observer will always be (almost) stable - the nature of observers of integrating objects (without significant damping factor), the natural cancellation of first-order response steady-state error. The LQR controller with an assumed quality criterion for the integrating object will always try to minimize it without going beyond non-linear areas, as assumed. It seems natural to ask how the observer and the object would behave for parameters such as: Rs=1Ohm, Ld=Lq=1mH, I=1e-3kgm2. The system probably works so well because of this assumption of the object's parameters. However, this is debatable for a later article.
The title is chosen awkwardly, it is impossible to guess what the main achievement presented in the work is.
As part of the literature review, it is worth mentioning solutions with a Kalman filter (EKF, UKF) and MPC controllers for PMSM, which were very much missing during the state of problem analysis.
A good and complete work, in my opinion worth publishing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper deals with the design and implementation of a control for permanent magnet synchronous motor based on disturbance sliding mode observer and LQR current regulator. The introduction is clear, well written and with a sufficient number of references. Section II presents the model of PMSM and of the current loop. The mathematical approach is clear and well written.
Sect. III deals with the disturbance sliding mode observer. Equations are a bit difficult to follow, starting from eq. (11) should be better explained.
Sect. IV presents the design of the linear quadratic current regulator. The algorithm is not clear, "repeat - until" statements are not clear. Simulations (sect. V) and experimental results (sect. VI) are clear and convincing.
Minor:
* row 44: KHz -> kHz
* row 154: "under - axis is"
* row 199: sruface
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors addressed the recommendations, the manuscript has been sufficiently improved and now it is ready to be published.
