Improvement of Braking Response Performance of Fault-Tolerant Dual Winding Motor for Integrated Brake System Using Winding Switching
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors
The paper presents the improvement of braking response performance of fault-tolerant dual winding motor for integrated brake systems using winding switching. However, there are some comments for the authors. The comments are:
1. The contribution and novelty are not clear.
2. The abstract and conclusions are weak.
3. All the equations are written in a bad style. The subscripts are not clear or indicated. Also, all the equations must be given numbers (example: Eq. 1). The symbols must be defined or explained (example: ??? and Im?). What is w and w ?!
4. Please provide a detailed model for the motor including the equivalent circuit.
5. What are the units in Figure 8-a [Apk]? Let it [A] then explain it in the text that it is the peak. Also, for the VpkLL.
6. The captions of Figures 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 require rewording.
7. The references require reordering through the manuscript. ([29] appears before [27])
8. Figure 10 needs improvement. Also the dual converter circuit must be indicated.
9. Simulation results must be provided and compared to the practical results.
10. Too many language errors are presented such as: (Please review all the manuscript carefully)
· Line 6 of the abstract “is a overheat” replace by “is an overheating” also in the conclusions.
· Line 15 of the abstract “As a result of comparison” replace by “As a result of the comparison”
· Line ** in the introduction " [17], [18] proposed novel " replace by " [17], [18] proposed a novel "
· Line ** the last paragraph in the introduction “or to change delta” replace by “or change the delta”
· Line ** in the introduction " of performance " replace by " of the performance "
Author Response
We greatly appreciate both your precious time and helpful comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors propose an interesting fault-tolerant concept for barking systems. The paper is almost well-written and based on a good state-of-the-art review. However, there are some lacks that should be addressed:
1. More details should be given about the simulation platform. In this context, the authors should also provide information on the used models and adopted assumptions.
2. Real-world implementation issues should be discussed. In particular, the transients resulting from switching from one configuration to another.
3. What about the induced cost of the proposed concept in comparison to available solutions?
Author Response
We greatly appreciate both your precious time and helpful comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It is Ok.
Regards
Author Response
We greatly appreciate both your precious time and helpful comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been properly revised.
Author Response
We greatly appreciate both your precious time and helpful comments.
