Key Parameters Design of Robot Joint Motor Based on Frozen Permeability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper  adopts the frozen permeability to decouple the stator and rotor magnetic fields under high-load 12 operation, analyze and optimize the tooth width, slot opening, permanent magnet thickness and 13 pole arc coefficient of the motor. There is no methodology followed for doing the review. convincing related work section, discussion section. Also, there is no clarity on what is the problem?  why the author developed the scheme? What are the available solution and what are their problem for which author developed the scheme?  I think the authors may be well suited to submit this paper to a different journal .I recommend few major revisions in the paper before it getting accepted. Kindly do the following modifications in the paper.

 

·         The abstract needs to be rewritten more precise and concrete. Including, Introduction,Objective,Method, Results, Conclusion. Please improve the abstract, it should list all the contributions made very clearly.

·         Introduction section is very weak The introduction is very weak. The author must include the following in order to improve the introduction section.

A. First Para :General Statement about the field of research.

B. Second Para: More Specific Statements About the Aspect of problem.

C. Third Para: Statement that indicate the need for More investigation and Novelty of Study.

D. Fourth para: very Specific statement giving the objectives.

·         The novelty of this paper is not clear. The difference between present work and previous Works should be highlighted.

·         Not a single reference from year 2020,2021,2022. I recommend the authors should do a critical analysis of the problem, available solution, drawbacks in current solution for which author have written manuscript. Also used the latest research articles form 2021 & 2022 for performing related work.

·         The difference between your proposal and related works is not clear, you could do details better. I suggest adding a comparative table in ''Related work'' to contrast your solution in front of related works.

·         All the short forms(abbreviations) are not defined.

·         Limitations and Highlights of the proposed methods/method/scheme must be addressed properly.

·         The context of the manuscript is not widely studied, as the authors did not present the related work or literature review section in the manuscript.

·         The manuscript lack in detailed description of methodology section and a flow diagram of the work. The methodology section is the core of the work, so it must be very well explained, there can be no doubts. The author must include separate methodology section and present a flow diagram of the work.

·         Manuscript lacks in comparison of the results obtained with state of art methods or models. And comparison with the latest research articles form 2021 & 2022

·         The results section is very week to support the claim made by authors.

 

·         The conclusion section (summary) needs to elaborate more by discussion the disadvantages of the developed model & discussion on the results obtain. The author should also include the future work section. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The font in figure 1 does not meet the standards and should be corrected after checking the image text format.

2. The summary and conclusion are written in the present simple passive voice.

3. Check that the text in Figure 3 matches the paper format.

4. The selection basis of 32 pole 36 slot of the motor should be elaborated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The analysis is presented very briefly (Cogging torque variations of diff.numbers of slots/poles, thermal analysis and etc). see for example https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272821828_Design_of_a_high_performance_servo_motor_for_low_speed_high_torque_application

The name of the program in which the analysis was performed is not given

The experimental results refer only to measurement the waveform of the back-EMF and obtaining  torque versus current curve

missmatch in line 32: "fields on the motor saturation. degree of influence. The frozen magnetic permeability is..." 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The appreciate the author have done efforts to include the comments/suggestion given.into te revised manuscript. Further some comments are still unattempted. I recommend few major revisions in the paper before it getting accepted. Kindly do the following modifications in the paper.

 

 

a.       Must change Comment no1 . The key part of introduction section is missing the author should include the Contribution Section. Without clear contribution in the paper its difficult to understand the main objective of manuscript. I recommend author should include a separate paragraph for the contribution. and mention point by points what are the contributions.

 

 

b.      Point 5 is still not addressed: The difference between your proposal and related works is not clear, you could do details better. I suggest adding a comparative table in ''Related work'' to contrast your solution in front of related works.

 

Must change. The literature review section is not present. The author should include the separate literature review section with tables.

 

c.       Point 8 is still not addressed : The context of the manuscript is not widely studied, as the authors did not present the related work or literature review section in the manuscript.

 

Must change Comment no 11- In section 4, The paper lacks comparison of the developed model with the traditional model.

Please provide an supporting separate section name comparison, and provide the table while discussion the values (results obtained) and compare it with the other start of art model/solution/methods. which are discussed in the literature review section.

 

d.      The Point 10 is still not addressed : Manuscript lacks in comparison of the results obtained with state of art methods or models. And comparison with the latest research articles form 2021 & 2022.

 

 

Point 12 is still not addressed: The conclusion section (summary) needs to elaborate more by discussion the disadvantages of the developed model & discussion on the results obtain. The author should also include the future work section

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, I have modified point by point in accordance with the changes you gave, if you have other comments or suggestions, please let me know in a timely manner. 

Please see the attachment for the specific reply comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for correction

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

the author has incorporated all the suggested changes by me. only a minor part is missing that is 

Point 2: is still not addressed: The difference between your proposal and related works is not clear, you could do details better. I suggest adding a comparative table in ''Related work'' to contrast your solution in front of related works. 

 

 

still, the related work section is very weak (the related work section is not present ) to support the claim made by the author. and it needs improvement before its going to publish. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf