Active Vibration Control via Current Injection in Electric Motors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work presents a technique to reduce vibrations generated by the cogging torque in sinusoidal brushless motor. The methodology is verified by experimentation.

 

The provided information is relevant for the knowledge field. Nevertheless, some issues should be addressed before this manuscript could be considered for publication.

 

1) Some related works are not discussed (i.e., https://doi.org/10.3390/s130303831).

2) How the presented strategy compares to the “Adaptive Self-Tuning Fourier Coefficients Algorithm for Periodic Torque Ripple Minimization”. Please mention the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed methodology.

3) Figures 2, and 3. All the variables should be defined.

4) The Conclusion section should be added to include quantitative results, advantages and disadvantages, limitations, and recommendation for real implementations should be included.

Author Response

This work presents a technique to reduce vibrations generated by the cogging torque in sinusoidal brushless motor. The methodology is verified by experimentation. The provided information is relevant for the knowledge field.

Thanks for the thorough review, and for the positive comments. In the following, all your comments have been addressed.

Nevertheless, some issues should be addressed before this manuscript could be considered for publication.

1) Some related works are not discussed (i.e., https://doi.org/10.3390/s130303831).

2) How the presented strategy compares to the “Adaptive Self-Tuning Fourier Coefficients Algorithm for Periodic Torque Ripple Minimization”. Please mention the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed methodology.

Thanks for your observation. The paper you suggest proposes an interesting self-tuning compensation algorithm. The new version of our paper cites and discusses some related works, including those suggested by the reviewer. The differences with our proposal have been highlighted at the end of section 1, namely, the fact that, in our case, the current loop bandwidth does not allow compensation for the torque ripple through the current loops.

3) Figures 2, and 3. All the variables should be defined.

Thanks for the thorough review, all the variables have been defined, together with the mathematical model of SPMSM, developed on d-q axes. A nomenclature section has been added at the begin of the paper.

4) The Conclusion section should be added to include quantitative results, advantages and disadvantages, limitations, and recommendation for real implementations should be included.

Thanks for this advice, a conclusion section was added; it summarizes the main results obtained in the presented work and includes a discussion of pros and cons of the developed solution, as well as limitations and possible improvements.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) Please pay attention to the text and fix minor typos (e.g. "adjustabe model" - Figure 2, etc.). Try to convert some figures into the vector format to improve the quality if possible.

2) In Introduction section it is possible to bring some examples of applying control strategies that can help to minimize the impact of cogging torque by adjusting the motor's operating parameters in real-time based on the current operating conditions (fuzzy logic, model predictive control, etc.).

3) In section 2 it is useful to add mathematical model of a SPMSM.

4) It could be interesting to have one more figure (Figure 7) for rpm close to nominal speed. 

5) Conclusion part is missing.

Author Response

1) Please pay attention to the text and fix minor typos (e.g. "adjustabe model" - Figure 2, etc.). Try to convert some figures into the vector format to improve the quality if possible.

Thanks for the thorough review. The paper has been checked for typos, grammatical, and spelling errors. The resolution of the figures has been increased.

2) In Introduction section it is possible to bring some examples of applying control strategies that can help to minimize the impact of cogging torque by adjusting the motor's operating parameters in real-time based on the current operating conditions (fuzzy logic, model predictive control, etc.).

Thanks for your advice; it helped us improving our paper. The introduction now includes a discussion of control strategies that can reduce the impact of cogging torque by adjusting the motor's operating parameters in real time.

3) In section 2 it is useful to add mathematical model of a SPMSM.

Thanks for your suggestion. The mathematical model of SPMSM, developed on d-q axes, has been added to section 2.1, which has been completely rewritten and reorganized too.

4) It could be interesting to have one more figure (Figure 7) for rpm close to nominal speed.

Thanks for the thorough review. The switching frequency of the inverter is set to 10 kHz for efficiency reasons, this means that the maximum frequency that can be effectively canceled is approximately 1 kHz, since it is necessary to have a PWM frequency of at least one order of magnitude higher than the harmonic to be canceled to generate a sufficiently well-shaped sinusoid. Close to the nominal speed (3000 rpm), the harmonic to be cancelled (72nd) results at about 3.6 kHz, which is much higher than the limit of 1 kHz. Therefore, it is not possible to inject a harmonic at 3.6 kHz using this inverter with the required accuracy, since the inverter would produce only about three PWM pulses for each period of this harmonic.

Thanks for your observation, which allows us to point out these important considerations. This discussion was added at the end of the Introduction section.

5) Conclusion part is missing.

Thanks for your observation, a conclusion section has been added. It summarizes the main results obtained in the presented work and includes a discussion of pros and cons of the developed solution, as well as limitations and possible improvements.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This paper deals with active vibration control via current injection in electric Motors. It reviews different motor strategies, as well as introducing an active method that allows the attenuation of the vibration harmonic. Given that vibrations influence several components, its reduction is important in this field. Therefore, proposing an active method is a novelty, relevant and original within this field. 

The paper is overall well-written and interesting to a reader. Figures and Tables are clear, and with relevant information inside. Structure of the paper is also well. I have few minor suggestions that can Authors consider:

1. If all Authors are from the same Department, is there a need for (1) next to all names below the title?

2. Novelty of the paper can be emphasized in the Introduction more.

3. Is it better to rearrange the text so that you have Results and Discussion, and then Conclusion? Or perhaps put Discussion and Conclusions.

4. Novelty can be also emphasized in the Results/Discussion.   5. Why did you use SPMSM? IS this approach applicable to some other motor types?

Author Response

This paper deals with active vibration control via current injection in electric Motors. It reviews different motor strategies, as well as introducing an active method that allows the attenuation of the vibration harmonic. The paper is overall well-written and interest to a reader. Figures and Tables are clear, and with relevant information inside.

Many thanks for the appreciation of our work, and for the suggestion that helped us to improve the paper. In the following, all your comments have been addressed.

I have few minor suggestions that can Authors consider:

1. If all Authors are from the same Department, is there a need for (1) next to all names below title?

Thanks for the thorough review. The “1” has been deleted from the authors list.

2. Novelty of the paper can be emphasized in the Introduction more.

Thanks for this advice. The introduction has been rewritten to better highlight the novelty of the proposed solution.

3. Is it better to rearange the text so that you have Results and Discussion, and then Conclusion? Or maybe put Discussion and Conclusions.

Thanks for your advice. The paper has been rearranged by merging the Results and Discussion sections and adding a Conclusion section. It summarizes the main results obtained in the presented work and includes a discussion of the developed solution's pros and cons, limitations, and possible improvements.

4. Novelty can be also emphasized in the Results/Discussion.

Thanks for this advice. We hope to have satisfactorily improved the emphasis on the novelty and goodness of the proposed work, in particular in the completely rewritten Conclusions section.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
After reviewing your manuscript, I found it lacks the necessary scientific and technical value, particularly in mathematical knowledge. For a study on control techniques in active vibration control in electric motors, a robust mathematical foundation is essential. Therefore, I recommend revisiting your mathematical approach, conducting more in-depth analyses, and providing clearer explanations to enhance the scientific and technical value of your work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A moderate English grammar check should be conducted.

Author Response

Dear Authors, after reviewing your manuscript, I found it lacks the necessary scientific and technical value, particularly in mathematical knowledge. For a study on control techniques in active vibration control in electric motors, a robust mathematical foundation is essential. Therefore, I recommend revisiting your mathematical approach, conducting more in-depth analyses, and providing clearer explanations to enhance the scientific and technical value of your work.

Thanks for your advice, which helped us improve our paper. The mathematical approach has been improved, adding the analytical model of the electric motor and the current injection method for vibration control on the d-q axes. In particular, section 2 has been extensively modified, adding the model of the motor under test, control strategy and current injection algorithm in subsection 2.1. The new parts have been highlighted in yellow in the new version of the paper. 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed the recommendations, the manuscript has been sufficiently improved and could be considered for publication.

Author Response

The authors addressed the recommendations, the manuscript has been sufficiently improved and could be considered for publication.

Thanks for the thorough review and the positive comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did not adequately address all the comments, and this version does not meet the standards necessary for acceptance for publication.

Author Response

The authors did not adequately address all the comments, and this version does not meet the standards necessary for acceptance for publication.

Dear reviewer, the authors did not intend to ignore his previous comment but felt they had responded to it. We apologize for any inconvenience and regret, we have now further improved the mathematical treatment of our work by including the formulation of the main adaptive algorithms, including the one used. We hope this will convince the estimated reviewer to agree to the publication of the paper.

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revised version is not acceptable to be published.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript should be updated in terms of grammar and organization matters.

Author Response

Comment: The manuscript should be updated in terms of grammar and organization matters.

Response: Dear reviewer, we apologize for the inconvenience. The paper has been checked for typos, grammatical, and spelling errors. If you deem it appropriate to make a correction of the English language through the paid service offered by MDPI, we will proceed promptly.