A Model Predictive Control Scheme with Minimum Common-Mode Voltage for PMSM Drive System Fed by VSI

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is describing MPC algorithm for PMSM drive and modulation strategy that strives to minimize common mode voltage. From my point of view it is combination of two topics that are not connected together within the paper. The predictive controller is described in second chapter and modulation strategy described in third chapter. Both topics are well known, therefore authors should better explain the novelty or improvement of the proposed strategy or fusion of MPC a modulation presented in their paper.

1) Describe clearly novelty of the paper

2) Because you focus on modulation the modulation gains or the accuracy of your overmodulation strategy (OVRM) should be discussed and proven in the paper

3) Compare you modulation strategies with some conventional one like SVM from the point of viwe of THD, harmonics, etc.

4) Explain better connection between dynamics of the drive and overmodulation strategy

English level of the paper is OK

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with a new PWM technique proposed for PMSM drive with minimum common mode voltage. The paper is well-written, and the technique has been extensively studied and explained. However, the following comments need to be checked to improve the paper quality.

 1.      Does the proposed hybrid modulation method improve the steady-state and/or dynamic performance of other than PMSM drive systems?

2.      NSPWM and VV abbreviations are not defined in the abstract.

3.      Lines 45 to 47 can be made clearer to understand.

4.      Line 63 to 65 can be made clearer to understand with correction of grammar.

5.      Other grammar errors should be corrected after proofreading, for example the word focus should be replaced with focuses in line 109.

6.      In equation (12), OVMR values are from (10) or (11) or otherwise?

7.      Experimental results figures should be replaced with high quality if available.

8.      A summary of simulation and experiment results should be made in table form for comparison or otherwise waveforms can be compared.

9.      THD comparison table of conventional techniques and proposed techniques and achieved minimum CMV.

10. Detail of the PMSM design can be included whether it was a prototype or commercially available machine, cross-sectional view etc.

11. The response time in the proposed technique and the SVPWM is not clear from figure 20. Please make a clear view so it can be seen easily. Also, what are the authors’ comments on the torque ripple?

12. Similarly, in figure 21, the dynamic response time from 0 to 1000 rpm for traditional SVPWM seems less than 42ms or it is not clear.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The idea of the papaer is presented in clearer way now. The paper is longer that I expected, but the modulation strategies are suported by the both simulation and measured results. I have found several typos in added texts (Search for Figure x) and proof read english in added parts 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been extensively revised and well written. Compared to SVPWM, the suggested approach provides an excellent dynamic response with a low CMV for changes in load and speed.

With further investigation, switching losses and current ripple can be minimized. What are the authors' thoughts on this? It is recommended to add a final statement on this in Conclusion section.

Other than that the work is appreciable and well-done with a good potential for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf