Design of Sensorless Control System for Permanent Magnet Linear Synchronous Motor Based on Parametric Optimization Super-Twisting Sliding Mode Observer
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank You very much and MDPI for article I could review: Design of Sensorless Control System for Permanent Magnet Linear Synchronous Motor Based on Parametric Optimization Super‐Twisting Sliding Mode Observer.
Below my general points:
1. On Fig. 1 we have rotary motor (12 creche i stator and 24 creche in rotor) and linear motor (12 creche in primary and 12 in secondary). Why the number of stator slots for coils have 12 creche but in linear motor you have 13 in primary? Why for the secondary coils in linear motor you have only 13 small coils?
2. Really in sensorless control system for PMLSM, we could “ignoring eddy current and hysteresis losses in the motor and for equations we take the rotor magnetic field as the sinusoidal in the air gap space and no damping winding on the rotor” without any control loses or weakness?
3. What is the percentage value of mistake if we make In PMLSM, Ld=Lq in the equation?
4. How high frequencies we expect? We will control it form IGBT inverter?
5. Please give more information about parameters and nominal data of PMLSM.
6. What kind of ripples or torsions we could expect? Is it possible to reduce them?
7. All pictures from Fig. 4, Fig. 9, Fig. 10, Fi. 13, Fig. 14 should be graphically corrected – bigger and mor readable.
8. Especially pictures form Fig 13. should be graphically corrected.
9. What important we have to find on Fig. 13? Please give more information about dynamic property contrast of the three control strategies(load).
10. In my opinion the conclusion is to general. Please explain for example more summaries and received effects from presented on Fig 13 and Fig. 14.
11. We have the title: Design of Sensorless Control System for Permanent Magnet Linear Synchronous Motor Based on Parametric Optimization Super‐Twisting Sliding Mode Observer.
I expected more information about: Parametric Optimization, Design of Sensorless Control System and Sliding Mode Observer.
12. Please give more information and explain received effects more in technical language about "Finally, the proposed method is simulated and tested. The comparison results show that the proposed method boost the systemʹs dynamic response and robustness, and reduces chattering."
I hope my points should have to improve the article.
Thank You very much for attention.
Best Regards
The Reviewer
Minor editing of English language or moderate editing of English language is required.
Author Response
请参阅附件
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper proposes the method for the enhanced position tracing of the permanent magnet synchronous linear motor based on the continuous terminal sliding mode control controller and improved sliding mode observer Authors replaced traditional sliding mode switching law with a super-twisting algorithm, with the gain of the sliding mode optimized using the Particle Swarm Optimization. Authors obtained promising results compared to other methods. Nevertheless, I have the following comments and questions:
1) In page 6, subsection 4.1., there is a repetition of the sentence, as follows: “Traditional SMO are designed in the static coordinate system α-β, Traditional SMO are designed in the α-β coordinate system..”
2) In page 2 Authors stated: “In literature [12], neural network is combined with SMC, and the switching gain in SMC is trained by neural network, which effectively improves the stability and robustness of the system and reduces chattering. However, the high cost of neural network is not conducive to practical application.” What is the “cost” of the method developed by Authors compared to the neural networks? Have you measured the calculation time of your method?
3) The estimated value of the location that is expressed by Equation (32) relies on the values of the back electromotive forces estimated in α-β coordinate system and also the flux of the permanent magnet. Have you analyzed the robustness of the estimation of the location to the changes of the motor parameters (especially resistance and inductance of the stator that could change along with the current and temperature)?
4) Have you analyzed the results of the k1 and k2 determination for different parameters of the PSO?
5) The quality of Figure 7 should be improved.
6) The text of the article should be double checked and the sentences should be more specific, avoiding the unclear statements such as (page 10): “…and then with the actual current signal is poor, I get the current signal…”
7) The limitations of your method should be further analyzed.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is written nicely. However, the following comments can be addressed.
1. Why is PSO considered to update the parameter of ST algorithm? Please explain the novelty and requirements of PSO. Also , please try to compare the use of PSO for parameter updates with other existing optimation techniques.
2. Different conditions in the simulations and hardware should be presented to prove the robustness of the proposed method.
3. An overall closed-loop stability proof for the observer and controller should be provided.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 4 Report
Following points should be taken up carefully to further improve the paper:
1. Introduction is very well written but still a question arises: Can any other method do what you did more efficiently? If yes, then this has to be explicitly mentioned somewhere in the introduction.
2. Can you show what happens for different operating conditions i.e., different torque and speed levels.
3. Is there an increase in CPU utilization due to more computation required for the proposed algorithm? If yes, can you discuss this in a section or put it in the results section.
4. I would encourage to put a better picture of experimental setup and explain each component in detail.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors, Thank You for corrections.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
Thank you very much for addressing my comments and questions.
The manuscript has been improved, I do not have additional comments.
In my opinion, the article requires minor editing of English language.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is well written, and the comments are well addressed.
