Component-Level Modeling of More Electric Auxiliary Power Units for Cooperative Control

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors:

 

Definitely, the following elements should be handled:

 

1- There are too many keywords. Please provide the most effective keywords related to the topic.

 

2- The nomenclature/abbreviation section needs to be supplied. Abbreviations that are unavoidable in the abstract must be defined at their first mention there, as well as in the footnote. Ensure consistency of abbreviations throughout the article.

 

3-English language should be carefully checked and carefully check paper for language typos.

 

4-Important topics related to APUs can also be addressed in the introduction. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.629.219

 

5- Page 1- line 33: Do not put dots before references.

 

6-Page 1, line 23: Leave a space between numbers and units.

 

7- Page 1, line 38: Leave a space between sentences and refs.

 

8-Page 2 line 87: 

 

9-The paper content you describe at the end of the introduction is no longer an acceptable form of writing.

 

10- Page 5 line 184: The order of your titles is incorrect.

 

11- Along the paper are the incorrect above, and the whole paper must be handled again. There are also capitalization errors in the content.

 

12- There is an error in your figure order. (page 13 line 423 Figure 1 ???)?

 

13+ Discuss results in concise and make the way for the future study which need to be addressed.

 

14-  Conclusion section is missing some perspective related to the future research work.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

  Thank you very much for spending your valuable time reviewing our manuscript. We have carefully read your comments and have made amendments one by one in response to your comments. We believe that with your help, the quality of our manuscript has been greatly improved.

  Please see the attachment for reply.

Yours sincerely

Tianhong Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

After reviewing this work, it should be noted that the reviewed article is characterized by a very high scientific level, thus contributing to the knowledge of the modeling process for electrified auxiliary power units (MEAPU) to ensure cooperative control. 

This is evidenced not only by the conducted critical analysis of the current state of knowledge in the field of research and a detailed discussion of the research methodology, but, above all, by the proposed approach to solving the research problem, supported by the conducted research and simulation tests, allowing to draw important insights and formulate conclusions reflected in practical application. 

In terms of the research and simulation tests conducted, the work is very interesting, presenting an innovative idea/technical approach for solving the research problem of MEAPU component-level modeling for cooperative control. 

In view of the above, for the purpose of solving the research problem, in addition to the critical analysis of the current state of the art of the research subject, the authors of this paper not only carried out the process of in-depth analysis of the functionality of the MEAPU operation and the input and output of the auxiliary power unit under study in accordance with the MEA trend, but, first of all, on the basis of the created novel nonlinear MEAPU model (CLM) at the component level, the CLM of the APU was developed. 

In the next stage of research, based on the above-mentioned model reflecting the coupling relationship between the MEAPU and starter-generator (SG), with the real-time performance in the full flight envelope for validation of research inquiries through the use of hardware-in-the-loop (HIL), the authors proposed a novel approach in the form of using a continuous scaling method of characteristic diagram adjustment to correct the developed CLM APU (the process of fitting the characteristic diagram for more than one point of the test data and more than one working point of the diagram of the characteristic under consideration). 

The above approach was used by the authors of the paper both to develop a model of a double stator winding induction generator (DWIG), and by applying the PWM rectifier linearization technique, an improvement in the real-time performance of the created model was obtained for its optimization, as a result of which the proposed solution allowed the authors to present important insights and formulate final conclusions, reflected in practical applications. 

In confirming the above assessment, it should be noted that the authors of this article, in addition to graphical presentation, discussion and proper analysis of their research and simulation tests in terms of the scientific problem that concerns them, highlighted their research inquiries through graphical illustration (Figures 1-15) and tabular summaries (Table 1), along with detailed running commentary and in-depth analysis of the results obtained.

This is very important from the point of view of existing knowledge, as evidenced by the research results obtained by the authors in terms of the strategy adopted to solve the research problem. 

While reviewing this manuscript, with the exception of minor editing errors and some inaccuracies occurring in the abstract section of the reviewed work in the methodological aspect, I found no other shortcomings that have a key impact on the level and quality of this article. 

Abstract: 

In accordance with the recommendations of reputable publishing houses and journals, e.g. IEEE TTE, IEEE Access, Wiley and Sons, or MDPI, part of the abstract should contain the following basic elements: introduction (reference to the subject matter of the study), clear definition of the aim of the work, approximation/addressing of the potential solution to the problem/methods, and response to on the basis of the research, test, experience, developed mathematical model, to formulate relevant observations and final conclusions. 

Part of the abstract of an article, paper, manuscript, etc. should not exceed 200 words, in this article there are 250. In my opinion, this abstract does not clearly state both the purpose of the work, as well as does not refer to the prediction of the results obtained in terms of relevant insights and conclusions formulated (part of the conclusion of the paper). 

Minor inaccuracies noted in the abstract section of this article: 

1. There is no definition of the explicit purpose of this study.
2. In the abstract, it is rather not recommended to explain abbreviations and designations, as was done in this article, in the case of abbreviations (MEAPU, HIL, CLM, SG, DWIG). It should be noted that this is not a serious mistake, but the abstract should focus on other important elements (aim, results achieved, methods used, conclusions, etc.). In my opinion, the abbreviations and designations used in the abstract should be explained later in the paper, i.e. in the introduction, for example. 
3. Lack of reference to both the expected and predicted research results (analysis, model, simulations, tests), as well as reference to important insights and final conclusions reflected in practical applications. 

The rest of the work:

Minor inaccuracies noted in the rest of the work: 

1. Failure to maintain an unambiguous record in terms of literature references cited, such as on page 1 for [1], [2~4], [5] or [6]. Please check all literature references used in the presented work in this regard. 
2. Regarding the literature references used [1]-[38] on pages 1-5, other than duplicating references [22,23] (page 9) and [30] on page 11, and thus stating that from pages 12-20, the authors of this one did not see the need to refer to literature references, I did not observe other inaccuracies in this regard. 
3. No explanation of some abbreviations, such as the key abbreviation PWM referenced repeatedly in this one. Please check the entire article for this. 

4. The article observed duplication of explanations of some abbreviations both in the abstract and in the rest of the paper, such as DWIG. In addition, when explaining this abbreviation, the term motor was used instead of generator. Please check the entire paper in this regard.
5. The content contained in a study, paper, article, etc., should be presented in the 3rd person, not as presented in this manuscript, e.g., we ..., in the case of we adopt ... on page 2.
6. Incorrect numbering of the description of the drawings, such as in the case of the figure presented on page 13. In addition, in this regard, I have observed both duplication and failure to keep the notation of some drawings unambiguous, such as on page 3 (figure 2), page 8 (figure (4a)), page 9 (figure 5), pages 10-11 (figure 6), etc. Please check the entire article in this regard.
7. The use of sentences that are too short in the article, e.g., page 2, point 87 and points 95-96, respectively, and, in contrast, sentences that are too long, e.g., page 15 points 483-486 (51 words). Please check the entire article in this regard.
8. Other editorial errors, mainly in the use of punctuation marks, e.g., p. 1, points 32-33; p. 2, point 97 and points 158-159; p. 9, point 333 and p. 12, point 407, or in the failure to maintain unambiguous notation for ˂ 10-5 (i = 1,2,3) and ˂ 10-5 (i = 1,2), respectively, points 253 and 259 on p. 6. An analogous situation applies to the attached list of literature on the subject of the study, e.g., pp. 19-20, items 4-9, 15-19, 21, 24-31 and 33-38.
9. In addition, the final part of the paper (observations, conclusions), should not end with a bullet point. 

Strong aspects:

A technical approach, an idea to solve the problem and its explanation, a thorough analysis of the obtained research results supported by the formulation of final conclusions, the adequacy of the methods used and the ability to use them. In addition, professionally developed graphical interpretation of the obtained results (Figures 1-15), analysis and in-depth validation of the obtained test results, supported by mathematical analysis through the use of equations (1)-(20). 

Weak aspects:

Minor shortcomings that do not significantly affect the quality of the reviewed work, i.e. editorial errors and poor quality of the methodological part, mainly the abstract section. 

Recommended changes:

Regardless of the Editor's decision, at this stage of the paper, I would recommend that the authors improve the recommendations in items 1-9 of this review and the above recommendations (weak aspects). 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer

  Thank you very much for spending your valuable time reviewing our manuscript. At the same time, thank you for your recognition and evaluation of our work. Your comments are very important to us. 

  We have carefully read your comments and have made amendments one by one in response to your comments. We believe that with your help, the quality of our manuscript has been greatly improved.

  Please see the attachment for reply.

Yours sincerely

Tianhong Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper proposes novel a nonlinear component-level model (CLM) that can reflect the coupling relationship between the more electric auxiliary power unit (MEAPU) and starter-generator (SG) in the full flight envelope with the real-time performance that can satisfy the needs of hardware in the loop (HIL).

The paper deals with an interesting topic, although some minor and major observations must be addressed before a final decision can be taken.

1.- English grammar and style must be revised in deep.

2.- The novelties of this paper and the new contributions with respected the existing state of the art are unclear. The authors are required to develop this part in detail.

3.- Please add a flux diagram detailing the main steps and algorithms applied in your approach.

4.- All equations in the manuscript need to be referred or demonstrated.

5.- More details about the simulation tools used to obtain the results are required, such as the development environment, programming language, time step, etc.

6.- A table with all parameters, rated current, voltage and power of the DWIG and other components required in the simulation are required, as well suitable references of their origins.

7.- Fig 11.d is difficult to read, please improve.

8.- There are few references from 2021-2022. 

The Reviewer suggests revising the work based on the suggestions above in order to improve its readability, scientific interest and quality.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer

  Thank you very much for spending your valuable time reviewing our manuscript. We have carefully read your comments and have made amendments one by one in response to your comments. We believe that with your help, the quality of our manuscript has been greatly improved.

  Please see the attachment for reply.

Yours sincerely

Tianhong Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have replied my questions. I still miss a paragragh in the final part of the Introduction section describing the novelties and new contributions with respect to the existing state of the art

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are very sorry that we did not clearly answer your questions about novelties of this paper and the new contributions with respected the existing state of the art in the last revision, which is our mistake. Based on your suggestion we added a paragraph in the final part of the introduction section. Here are the responses.

 

Point 1: The authors have replied my questions. I still miss a paragragh in the final part of the Introduction section describing the novelties and new contributions with respect to the existing state of the art.


Response 1: thank you again for your suggestion, and sorry for our inadequate modification. So we added a paragraph in the final part of the introduction section as follows:

One of the contributions of this paper is to establish an integrated model of MEAPU considering the coupling relationship between MEAPU and SG, because in previous studies, most researchers have only established the CLM model of the aeroengine, or combined it with the generator model to establish the aeroengine power generation model. Another contribution of this paper is to propose a continuous scaling method, which improves the accuracy of MEAPU CLM and is a development of modifying, scaling, and constructing characteristic maps used in previous research. The third contribution of this paper is using the PWM linearization method to ensure the real-time performance of the SG model, which is different from the method used in previous research. The novel MEAPU integrated model established in this paper has the characteristics of high precision and good real-time performance which can be used for collaborative control research and hardware in the loop test.

We hope this paragraph can describe the novelties and new contributions with respect to the existing state of the art and hope to get your approval. You can see these improvements in the revised manuscript.

 

Yours sincerely,

Tianhong Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx