Challenges in Winding Design and Thermal Calculations: Physical Model of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Fix reference line 109

Line 199: Authors should not leave the conclusion to the reader. Fill with a text comparing each results.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for all your comments. We really appreciate your professional recommendations and very detailed review of manuscript. We have considered all your recommendations.

Please see the attachment.

Lukas Veg

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents a physical model of a permanent magnet synchronous machine considering multilayer windings design.   In general, the topic of this paper is interesting. Here, there are some concerns of this reviewer:

1 In the introduction, the authors should highlight the research gaps and contributions of the proposed work by comparing the state-of-the-art methods and recent studies. 

2 The literature review can be strengthened. Avoid lumping reference and summarize the main contribution of each referenced paper in a separate sentence.

3 The Conclusions can be improved. This reviewer strongly suggests the authors clearly explain what the significant findings are and why your paper is really important.

4 As stated in this paper, accurate physical model and parameters of a synchronous machine are very important. To highlight this point, the introduction section can be enhanced by citing the following related works: [doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2939055].

5 Please improve the quality of different figures such as Figs. 10 and 11 completely to improve the readability of this paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for all your comments. We really appreciate your professional recommendations and very detailed review of manuscript. We have considered all your recommendations.

Please see the attachment.

Lukas Veg

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The experimental results considering the winding method and heat of the motor are considered interesting research results.

1. In conclusion, the following sentence was written:
[The ideal ratio of the number of turns of the central and marginal coil is √3; the parasitic components of the produced magnetomotive force waveform are reduced.]
Please provide more detailed description of the relevant content in the text. Or you may wish to add a reference to make the mentioned sentence more persuasive.

2. The authors stated that one of the factors overlooked in multilayer windings is the effect of the arrangement of the coil sides on the slot leakage inductance. It has also been evaluated for different turns ratios and said that it can be applied to four-layer hairpin windings as well. Please provide supplementary explanations of relevant content in the text.

3. The authors used a physical model to evaluate the thermal properties of the slot. A combination of analysis, FEA, and CFD calculations was used, and results were obtained iteratively.
I think that it will be possible to increase the understanding of the reader if the procedure for this process is illustrated and explained further.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for all your comments. We really appreciate your professional recommendations and very detailed review of manuscript. We have considered all your recommendations.

Please see the attachment.

Lukas Veg

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. 1. In the state of non-rotating test of Fig. 10, how to supply heat?
   2.  You mentioned the results of FEA, but the calculation methodology is not defined and explained. 
   3. In Fig. 9, you don't have to overlap the data or result by the legend.
   4. In Fig. 10, the emissivity chooses as 0.7, why?
   5. Fig. 11 should be refined to be clear.
   6. Fig. 11 and the text explanation are not exactly matched. It is not clear what you want to explain.
   7. In Table 1, what the meaning(definition) of max. error?
   8. You presented contact and non-contact temperature. As you know, you have to present the reason of the difference. The difference cannot be correct presentation.
   9. What kind tool did you used for your FEA simulation? Please explain or define the simulation methodology.
   10. In your simulation, you have to correctly define the simulation boundary conditions.
   • In line 326 and 327, you used the heat transfer coefficients as 44 and 24. How did you define these value? It cannot be natural convection in rpm =1000. What “analytically (empirically)”means?
   12. Also,in line 267, λekv was defined as 2.48 Wm-1 K-1,why?
   13. In conclusion, the challenge or design results, thermal modelling results are not clear. Based on your conclusion, I cannot catch what you want to claim from your research.
2.  

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for all your comments. We really appreciate your professional recommendations and very detailed review of manuscript. We have considered all your recommendations.

Please see the attachment.

Lukas Veg

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

I checked your revision and I confirm your publication.