Integrated Switched Reluctance Starter/Generator for Aerospace Applications: Particle Swarm Optimization for Constant Current and Constant Voltage Control Designs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Good work has been done on an interesting technological aspect, but I recommend presenting the results with greater clarity and evidence

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

1.       P2，line 67, please provide the full name of PID.

2.       P2，line 85, “…heuristic optimization methods that can employed to tune the PID controller…”->” …heuristic optimization methods that can be employed to tune the PID controller…”

3.       Please add citations for Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), Ant Colony Optimization 81(ACO), Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA), Artificial Bee Colony (ABC), Firefly Al- 82gorithm (FA), Differential Evolution (DE), Gravitational Search Algorithm (GSA), Bat Al- 83gorithm (BA), Pattern Search Algorithm (PSA), and Genetic Algorithm (GA).

4.       Section 3, the following sentence is not proper. “location and velocity are updated through iterations to discover the local best and the global best (7).” global best (7)?

5.       All symbols in Eqs.(5-7) should be defined.

6.       Please improve the quality of Figure 3.

 

7.       Please provide the reason of using PSO. 

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The Manuscript entitled "Integrated Switched Reluctance Starter/Generator for Aerospace Applications: Particle Swarm Optimization for Constant Current and Constant Voltage Control Designs" is very interesting scientific work that is proper for the publishing in Applied Sciences journal.

The strong parts of the Manuscript are:

-clearly stated motivation and presented research significance in the study, the introduction is well organised,

- methodology is sufficient for this kind of research and methods are properly used.

- the organisation of the Manuscript as well as visual aspect of the paper should be highlighted as sufficiently prepared for the submission.

In the Reviewers opinion there might be some points which strengthen the quality of the Manuscript:

- The last paragraph of the introduction (with bullet points) should be presented as research significance section, the introduction should include just the motivation of research and scientific background,

- In figure 2 Authors should paid more attention to the presentation of the chart (e.g. axis description)

- the weakest point of the Manuscript is the description of using presented method previously, (e.g. the authors have not presented that PSO were used in similar case studies) It would strengthen the reliability of using this particular method, 

- Moreover presenting other usage of afore-mentioned method with comparison will be beneficial for comparing the results obtained in this work with other similar in this field 

- Section 4 is just tables and figures without deeper description. It should be done to better understanding of the methodology,

- Conclusion section would benefit from the comparison of obtained results with other in the field.

Overall merit of the Manuscript is very positive however the Manuscript will benefit from revision before publishing.

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I accept the response from the Authors.