Virtual Voltage Vector-Based Model Predictive Current Control for Five-Phase Induction Motor
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a modified Model Predictive Current Control for Five-Phase Induction Motor and the work is very extensive. However, the write-up has some mistakes such as Fig. 20 and 21 titles are very confusing. Such mistakes must be checked before improved version submission. Also, a comparative result should be added, an experiment for example to strengthen the proposed theory.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for thorougly examing our manuscript and providing very helpful comments to guide our revision.We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections.
The errors in presentation have been corrected.Please see the attachment.
In addition, regarding your question about the experiment.As you suggested, the experimental results will be more convincing.But in this paper, the research focuses on the principles of the proposed virtual vector-based model predictive current control and its advantages over the traditional model predictive current control. Through the Matlab/Simulinksimulation results, the advantages of the proposed method can be preliminarily proved. A full validation of both methods will involve a lot of hardware and software work, it’s difficult to accomplish these tasks in a short period of time. Experimental verification is the focus of our next research.
We appreciated for reviewer's warm work earnestly,and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again,thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author,
he content and presentation of the paper is great, and the topic is very interesting, however the authors have failed to connect the paper to the topic of the special issue. This needs to be better explained in order to be acceptable for the special issue.
Another major issue it that the results are given only from Matlab/Simulink model. For a journal with this high standard, I would expect for the results to be verified experimentally or at least the control should be verified thorugh high fidelity HIL enviornment.
Otherwise, this is a very interesting paper with good results, and should be considered for publication after major revision.
Regards,
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for thorougly examing our manuscript and providing very helpful comments to guide our revision.The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer's comments are as following:
Point 1: The authors have failed to connect the paper to the topic of the special issue. This needs to be better explained in order to be acceptable for the special issue
Response 1:New energy vehicles have become a research hotspot in the field of new energy due to their advantages in reducing pollution emissions. For new energy vehicles, excellent motor control technology is very important. Multi-phase motors are also more suitable as drive motors for new energy vehicles due to their fault tolerance and greater power density. Therefore, this paper selects the five-phase motor to study its control technology and contributes to its application in the field of new energy vehicles.This part has been explained in the introduction and new references have been added (line24-30).
Point 2: For a journal with this high standard, I would expect for the results to be verified experimentally or at least the control should be verified thorugh high fidelity HIL enviornment.
Response 2: We are so grateful for your kind suggestion.As you suggested, the experimental results will be more convincing.But in this paper, the research focuses on the principles of the proposed virtual vector-based model predictive current control and its advantages over the traditional model predictive current control. Through the Matlab/Simulinksimulation results, the advantages of the proposed method can be preliminarily proved. A full validation of both methods will involve a lot of hardware and software work, it’s difficult to accomplish these tasks in a short period of time. Experimental verification is the focus of our next research.
We appreciated for reviewer's warm work earnestly,and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again,thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Line 44, FCS-MPC is not defined. The finite set model predictive control appears in line 42, which should be finite-control-set model predictive control (FCS-MPC) according to [19].
2. Line 47, [12-14][12][13, 14], needs to be modified.
3. Spaces need to be added in many places, such as line 62, [19,20]à[19, 20]; line 72, [12],[19]-->[12], [19]; ​​line 122, 5k(k=1,3,5…) à 5k (k=1, 3, 5).
4. In many places, variables must be subscripted instead of lowercase, such as the variables Lm, Ls, Lr, Lls, np, etc. on lines 128-131.
5. On line 143, the variable a is different from Eq. (7).
6. In Figure 3 and Figure 7, the output of the PI controller is isd*, and the output of the magnetic flux φ* is isq*, which is exactly the opposite of our general concept of vector control. According to the description on line 366, "the reference value of q-axis current quickly changes to -8A, and the actual value is immediately tracked...", which obviously proves that Figures 3 and 7 are wrong.
7. All variables in Equations (8), (9), (10), (17) are already vectors or matrices, no need to add square brackets [].
8. F and G in Eq. (13) are not defined.
9. Vdc is missing in Eq. (15), please confirm again.
10. Line 234, please confirm whether Udc and Vdc are the same, please use only a single symbol.
11. The 0.5277Vdc in Figure 5 should be 0.5527Vdc.
12. There should be a blank line between lines 291 and 292.
13. Line 295, Fligure 9, misspelling.
14. Line 293, please change 500R/min to 500 r/min or 500rpm.
15. Please change all T-mpc in this article to T-MPC.
16. According to this paper, the motor is 5 poles, so at 1200rpm, the current frequency should be 50Hz, but the current waveform frequency in Figure 14 should not be 50Hz.
17. Lines 321 and 326, FIG. changed to Fig.
18. The Label font in Figure 16 is too large.
19. The diagram description of Table 3 must be more detailed, otherwise it is impossible to see what the analysis is.
20. On line 374, the unit symbol of N*M needs to be modified.
21. Line 383, "greater than the thd under..."
22. Lines 389-396, please change all khz to kHz.
23. Although the cost functions of (12) and (18) are proposed in the whole paper, it is not clear how this cost function is related to the control? How does this cost function determine the parameters of the modulator. There is also a parameter Wxy in equation (12), which may be related to the controller; but there is no parameter in (18) that can be used to determine the controller parameters. I don’t know what role (18) does?
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for thorougly examing our manuscript and providing very helpful comments to guide our revision.We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections.
Please see the attachment.
We appreciated for reviewer's warm work earnestly,and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again,thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
You have done nothing to further the results and discussion, nor did you fully justify the topic within the scope of new power systems (I agree that one sentence was added to the something of an off-topic discussion), but it requires further justification.
In that regard, my recommendation will remain the same.
The paper is well written and has very interesting reserach potential, however this is hindered by lack of verification.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for thorougly examing our manuscript and providing very helpful comments to guide our revision.We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections.
Point 1: The authors have failed to justify the topic within the scope of new power systems.
Response 1: Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. The special issue of this journal is "Modeling, Analysis and Control Processes of New Energy Power Systems". The new energy system includes many aspects.In addition to new energy units such as wind power and photovoltaic, there are many fields directly related to our life in the new energy system.New energy vehicles is an important application of new energy systems in transportation,and the motor is the key part of the new energy vehicles.So this paper selects the five-phase motor to study its control technology and contributes to its application in the field of new energy vehicles. In view of this, we have rewritten the line 24-32 of the introduction.
We have reviewed the papers published in the special issue, and there are also studies on the control of multi-phase motor, so I think our paper should be in line with the special issue.
Point 2: Further results and discussion are not done.
Response 2: We are so grateful for your kind suggestion.
We have re-discussed the simulation results in detail, and re-wrote the results of several sets of simulations respectively, such as:line314-319,line348-352,line397-402,line408-416. The advantages of the proposed method under different simulation conditions are explained in detail.
We have rewritten the conclusion and briefly summarized the principle of the proposed VV-MPC. In addition, the advantages of the proposed VV-MPC compared with the T-MPC are explained in detail one by one.(line419-435)
We appreciated for reviewer's warm work earnestly,and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again,thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 3 Report
The author has answered my main questions, points 6, 16 and 23. The point 6, the author made the modification of the figure; the point 16 is my mistake, the author also explained. As for point 23, the author also made a supplementary explanation on lines 195-205. But I still have two points that I need to ask the author to revise to make this paper more perfect:
1. Just like equations 8 and 10, capital letters usually represent matrices or vectors. Therefore, the vector X on the left side of the equal sign in equation 8 does not need to add [], and the U in equation 9 is the same, no need to add []. Therefore, in the differential equation of equation 10, state X and U do not need to be added with [], including all subsequent mathematical equations to be processed together.
2. The variables in lines 175-177 are correctly represented by subscripts, but for example, V_dc in line 244 is not correctly labeled. There are many variables that are not correctly labeled throughout the article. In order to increase the quality of the paper, it is necessary to make modifications.
Author Response
Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions.We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections.
Point 1: Just like equations 8 and 10, capital letters usually represent matrices or vectors. Therefore, the vector X on the left side of the equal sign in equation 8 does not need to add [], and the U in equation 9 is the same, no need to add []. Therefore, in the differential equation of equation 10, state X and U do not need to be added with [], including all subsequent mathematical equations to be processed together.
Response 1: Thank you very much for finding this error. We apologize for this problem and have corrected it according to your suggestion. After our careful examination,we have dropped the square brackets of the vector X in equation 8,10,17.The square brackets of the vector U in equation 9,10,17 have also been dropped.
Point 2: The variables in lines 175-177 are correctly represented by subscripts, but for example, V_dc in line 244 is not correctly labeled. There are many variables that are not correctly labeled throughout the article. In order to increase the quality of the paper, it is necessary to make modifications.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions on details.We have examined the subscripts in this paper again.We have corrected the subscripts such as: line 179 (Tr,Lr,Rr),line 180 (Ts),line 255-257 (t16,t25),line290-297 (Wxy),line137-141 (Sx),and so on.
We appreciated for reviewer's warm work earnestly,and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again,thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author,
Even though the comments were not adressed, there has been some changes to the paper. It is pointless for me to select major changes at this point.
