Double-Closed-Loop Model Predictive Control Based on a Linear Induction Motor
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper introduces a double closed-loop model predictive control method for linear induction motor replacing the PI speed and current controllers with model predictive speed and model predictive current controllers to improve the speed response performance of linear induction motors and avoid overshooting and oscillation problems under PI control. From my point of view, this manuscript has significant major concern which must be addressed by the authors.
1. The introduction section of the manuscript has been written very poorly. The current version of introduction can’t introduce the main novelty and purpose of this manuscript. Authors are expected to state an appropriate literature to introduce the research gap and then present the necessity of the research and its novelty in the introduction.
2. I have not found any significant improvement in the results comparisons. The proposed two loop control scheme only introduces a minor enhancement in the thrust dynamic response and speed overshoot. In return, there is a significant trust ripple in the proposed scheme in comparison with conventional FOC scheme. This trust ripple challenges the performance of the LIM and the relevant sensitive and high-performance load.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors propose a double closed-loop control for the linear induction motor. The control’s speed and current loops are the model-predictive speed controller and the model predictive current controller, respectively. This concept allows to solve the problems of speed overshoot and oscillation when the linear induction motor is operated under PI control. The results demonstrate the benefits of the suggested control strategy, which include improved dynamic performance, negligible overshoot and robustness to load disturbance.
The work is good and can be further enhanced by improvements in presentation.
The authors are advised to address the following points in a revised version of their manuscript:
The literature section needs enhancement, with the addition and discussion of more reference citations
Line 69: A section cannot begin with a Figure. Please start the discussion of this section above Figure 1.
Section 3: Please add more discussion on the three key elements in your proposed MPC strategy, namely the prediction model, the cost function, and the optimization algorithm. For these three elements you should discuss possible alternative approaches, already published or yet unpublished.
Figure 5 – Figure 7: How much is the time step in these computations?
Figure 6: please discuss why the spikes produced at load increase at 1 s and load decrease at 2 s are higher with the MPSC+MPCC method.
The Conclusions section should include some quantitative results.
Line 203: please delete the “double closed-loop model predictive control has the advantages of”, since it is duplicated before.
English language OK, needs minor improvements.
The authors propose a double closed-loop control for the linear induction motor. The control’s speed and current loops are the model-predictive speed controller and the model predictive current controller, respectively. This concept allows to solve the problems of speed overshoot and oscillation when the linear induction motor is operated under PI control. The results demonstrate the benefits of the suggested control strategy, which include improved dynamic performance, negligible overshoot and robustness to load disturbance.
The work is good and can be further enhanced by improvements in presentation.
The authors are advised to address the following points in a revised version of their manuscript:
The literature section needs enhancement, with the addition and discussion of more reference citations
Line 69: A section cannot begin with a Figure. Please start the discussion of this section above Figure 1.
Section 3: Please add more discussion on the three key elements in your proposed MPC strategy, namely the prediction model, the cost function, and the optimization algorithm. For these three elements you should discuss possible alternative approaches, already published or yet unpublished.
Figure 5 – Figure 7: How much is the time step in these computations?
Figure 6: please discuss why the spikes produced at load increase at 1 s and load decrease at 2 s are higher with the MPSC+MPCC method.
The Conclusions section should include some quantitative results.
Line 203: please delete the “double closed-loop model predictive control has the advantages of”, since it is duplicated before.
English language OK, needs minor improvements.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish language OK, needs minor improvements.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript can be accepted in its current form.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors responded well with improvements in their revision.
Accept.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageonly minor improvements necessary
