1D Modeling Considering Noise and Vibration of Vehicle Window Brushed DC Motor

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the paper, a model considering noise and vibration is developed for the study of a window brush DC motor. To ensure the reliability of the model, the model simulates the effect of back EMF, noise and vibration environment on the results of the brushed DC motor. In addition, the measured signals (noise and vibration signals) are in better agreement with the simulation results of the model, which verifies the validity of the proposed model to a certain extent. However, the paper also has some problems, as follows:

1.        The references in the paper are too few and it is recommended to increase the number of references in relevant fields. In addition, the references are rather old and do not provide a better overview of the latest research results, and it is recommended to add references from recent years.

2.        The paper constructs a model of DC motor considering noise and vibration. However, the model in the paper is too simple, and the authors are recommended to enhance the discussion of the applicability of the model.

3.        The model built in this thesis is not obviously innovative, but simply a combination of simulation modules readily available in Matlab for use.

4.        Section 2.1 of the paper presents a large amount of information about Classic brushed DC motor modeling, which is recommended to be streamlined.

5.        Section 2.2 of the paper uses Matlab/Simulink to model a brushed DC motor with EMF vibration, what is the theoretical basis?

6.        The experimental discussion section of the paper is relatively simple and requires in-depth analysis.

7.        The research gaps in the paper are not well demonstrated.

8.        As shown in Figure 4b, the paper placed the motor on bubble wrap during the experiment. Bubble wrap has the effect of reducing vibration. The use of bubble wrap will affect the vibration and noise of the motor.

9.        The 1D motor model established in the article can only replace the motor studied in the paper. Is there any reference for other motors? Whether it can be compared with other similar types of motors to illustrate its universality.

10.    The ordinates in Figures 10 and 11 have no dimension. Are they dimensionless values?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,
the manuscript features an interesting study on the vibrations produced by a DC electric motor and the noise emitted by this device.
Despite the interesting subject, there are several points to improve:
1) the English language needs an extensive editing
2) please define what back EMF is at an early stage
3) line 30: why use the term uncomfortable? maybe "perceive a low quality of the product"
4) check the references numbering (you have ref 1 two times in the "References" section)
5) lines 64-74: please add the Section number to each one of the topics you list at the end of the "Introduction"
6) lines 113, 114: define what "turns" refer to
7) move formula (12) after line 115
8) experimental setup: explain why did you decide not to carry out measurements under load conditions?
9) explain why did you choose a distance of 15 cm from the device for the microphone position?
10) line 153: please add manufacturer, model and type of tachometer 
11) please check the name of the analyser: maybe Head Acoustics Squadriga?
12) line 169: you refer to Section 3.2, which is the same section you have placed the sentence...
13) Figures 6, 7: there are two issues you need to explain/correct: a) for the vibration graphs you simply state that the y-axis is "Magnitude"; please state what quantity you are referring to and its measurements unit. b) why without housing you measured a pressure level higher than without housing around 4 kHz ? Do you have an explanation for that?
14) Figure 8c: the title is "RPM", the x-axis caption "rev/s". Please use only one unit.
15) Figure 11: compared to Fig. 8, in Fig. 11 the function is much cleaner. Why is it like that? Are not all the measured frequency components considered by the model?
16) Table 3: please add the units for all the entries.
17) Please improve the conclusions according to the improvements in the discussion section.
 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have answered all the questions in detail and made detailed revisions to the paper, which is recommended to be accepted.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,
the required changes have been addressed properly.
Best regards