Electromagnetic Hysteresis Based Dynamics Model of an Electromagnetically Controlled Torque Coupling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents a dynamic model of an electromagnetic torque-controlled coupling (EMTC). The model is verified by simulation and experiment.

Although the acronyms (AWD,4WD, etc) are well known in literature you should write them explicitly at the first referring, AWD (all-wheel drive) and so on.

The paper is well structured.

Could you improve the quality of figures 15 and 16? (maybe place some grid lines)

Minor language improvements can be done. Minor formatting issues (lines 72, 75, 89, 108, 259, etc).

I appreciate positively that you performed also a real-car experiment and not only validation through numerical simulation.

Also, conclusions should be extended in order to highlight better the author’s contributions and novelty versus other similar topic papers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper theme is interesting. The affect of hysteresis in clutch systems can be significant and must be taken into account. However, the paper can be published after significant correction.

1.  Each abbreviation must be deciphered (for example, AWD).

2.  The introduction must be extended. The design of the mechanisms investigated in the paper must be explain in details. Fig. 1. is provided without any explanations and references in the introduction. What is denoted by digits in the left part of Fig.1?

3.  Each expressions and formulas must be explained carefully. Each designation must be explained in the text. For example, what is denoted be S0(t) and S+(t). Maybe, you will provide a designation list.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript introduces a dynamic model for simulating the electromagnetic hysteresis of a torque coupling system. The authors carried out numerical analyses as well as field experiments and found the measured output matches the calculated values.I have several suggestions regarding the presentation of this manuscript:

The authors should consider a more explicit way of presenting their figures. First, the captions are not detailed enough. For example, In Figure 4 and 5, no descriptions were listed on the difference between the “Model” and “Measured” shown in the legend. Relevant discussions in the text are also unclear. In Figure 7,  the authors explained that some methods were adopted from citation [17], but at least a brief description needs to be presented here. In Figure 15, it is better to present the data in the order of “Primary -> Second -> Third” instead of the permuted order. Line 86 “With the experimentally acquired data, as shown in fig. 3”. The authors need to explain the source of this data. Generally speaking, the English of this manuscript needs to be further polished. Many typos and grammatic errors make it difficult to read.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have answered all my comments and corrected the paper. The paper can be published.

Author Response

Thank you for your time!

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addressed most of my concerns. They might want to elaborate on some details in the captions of their figures.

Author Response

As mentioned in your review report, I located the problem of captions of some figures in the paper, and I have already made the revision, please check the revised version of the paper.