Model-Free Predictive Current Control of Five-Phase PMSM Drives
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe first point is that the authors must improve section 1. MPC applied in motor drives is a hot topic, but only 21 references are cited. In addition, the authors must clearly state the contribution at the end of section 1.
In sections 2 and 3, the authors present basic mathematical formulation regarding the PMSM, MPC, and SVM. So, what is novel here? SVM has been combined with MPC in several previous works. Including a comparative table while considering qualitative issues like implementation complexity, advantages, shortcomings, and so on could be very useful to the reader.
Section 4.1 is too short. The authors must either improve or remove it in the revised version because the discussion is too superficial. In addition, it is necessary to include the motor parameters like the rated voltage, power, and so on.
The harmonic spectrum shown in Fig. 8 should comprise up to the 40th order in compliance with power-quality-related standards. In addition, was the THD calculated while considering up to the 10th order? Please, elaborate.
It would be interesting to analyze the capacity to track the reference speed of all assessed methods using proper error metrics like the RMSE or any other the authors feel comfortable with.
The conclusion is too short. It must be improved while including the most relevant findings, contributions, and possible future work.
I could find some confusing sentences like this one:
Although large ripples are seen with the torque of the MFPCC with SVM under the (NO ARTICLE!) dynamic conditions, its torque pulsation in steady states (STATE) is relatively low.
Please, proofread the whole manuscript carefully.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper proposes a model-free predictive current control (MFPCC) strategy based on an ultralocal model and motor outputs for five-phase PMSM drives to decrease parameter dependence on current predictions.
The proposed method eliminates the impact of machine parameters and improves system performance.
This is a good article based on a rigorous mathematical model, with interesting practical results contrasted with other models. However, in my opinion, the article could be improved as follows:
1- Some of the main results should be briefly included in the Abstract.
2- The Introduction is correct, but more bibliographical references should support it.
3- The mathematical model used is correct. However, equations such as (2), (3), and (8) should be presented in the text on a single line.
4- The Conclusions should briefly include a comparison of the main results of the model used with those obtained with other models.
5- The DOI should be included in bibliographic references.
6- It should be avoided that Figure 6 and its title (page 9, line 213) are separated on different pages.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper proposes an ultra-local model-based model-free predictive current control for five-phase PMSMs to minimize the influence of parameters. The unknown terms in the ultra-local model are identified by current and voltage information. Overall, the proposed method is well-designed and also well validated by simulations and experiments. My comments are the follows:
-What is the advantage of the proposed method in contrast to the ultra-local model with observers? The author needs to clarify this.
-The titles of Tables 2 and 3 are too general, please state them in detail.
-Why is the performance of the MFPCC relatively poor than that of the MPCC in simulations and experiments? The author needs to explain this.
-The legend in experimental figures should be enlarged.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe author should make a careful proofreading and improve the language.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents an interesting topic for specialists in the field, although the problem is rarely encountered in practice.
The introduction could be improved by the analysis of other existing publications in the specialized literature.
The modeling of the phenomenon is well done, but the experiment must be done on multiple systems to be able to draw the correct conclusions, and to be described so that it can be replicated in any laboratory.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors could address most of my concerns. My final suggestion is to include the harmonic spectra considering up to the 40th order. You may consider suppressing the fundamental component and presenting the components between 2 and 40 instead for a better view.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
