Research on Constant Power Control Strategy of Pure Electric Excavator
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See pdf document
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Many thanks for your advices. The paper has been modified according to your comments. The detailed response is given in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, a piecewise constant power control strategy (of pure electric excavators) is proposed and evaluated. The topic is interesting and worth of consideration also for the possible practical outcomes and performance enhancements in the systems on which it could be implemented.
However, the manuscript lacks of clarity and detail in many pasts giving to the reader only a general understanding of the activity done and not the details lowering the scientific soundness of the work. In that regard, many data and comments are missing and most of the info and concepts are presented only via pictures. No sources or details/explanations are added to support the discussion in the first sections. Moreover, the implementation part is roughly described and an Amesim model is just presented with a photo.
Numerical and experimental results do not treat the same example thus no validation is given in that sense. Experimental results aren't presented (pictures can be improved showing the limits) and discussed in a proper way. Moreover a comparison with a reference/standard situation, e.g. constant power control, is missing and, thus, the benefits of the proposed approach cannot be properly assessed and appreciated.
English language and style shall be revised (some sentences sound weird or are "endless").
Other:
- eq.2: 30%<soc should be 30%>soc
- BMS - nothing is said about it
- first sencence at pag 5 sounds weird
- eq.8 : symbols are described after eq. 9 and it is difficult to understand
- pag 6: "of an EM" is generic and more details have to be given
- pag 7 after eq 12: shouldn't T_pmc be T_pm?
- you mention "closed-loop control". of what ?
- eq 21: it should be directly introduced in section 3
Author Response
Many thanks for your advices. The paper has been modified according to your comments. The detailed response is given in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
As a reviewer, I must thank the authors for their effort to review the paper. The modifications seem very adequate to me. The current version meets the necessary requirements to be published without the need for further changes As a reviewer, I must thank the authors for their effort to review the paper.The modifications seem very adequate to me. The current version meets the necessary requirements to be published without the need for further changes.
Congratulations.
Author Response
Many thanks for your comments to the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors improved their work by detailing the introduction, system structure and some of the pictures. However, the manuscript still needs some improvements.
Concern 2 in some pictures it is still unclear where the data come from. No data sources are reported.
Concern 3 the requested comparison has not been added in the results. Authors added a detailed evaluation of the literature comparing the work done in the references with respect to their work. Please comment on this.
Concern 5 correct, my mistake.
English language and style shall be revised also in the new text.
Author Response
Many thanks for your comments to the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
