Shell Analysis and Optimisation of a Pure Electric Vehicle Power Train Based on Multiple Software
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is well written and very interesting. Before the publication, some issues need to be addressed.
1. The novelty and contribution of this work need to be further clarified.
2. So as to extend the readership in different areas of EV development, some recent works could be added in the literature review, for example (not required): driving-style-based co-design optimization of an automated electric vehicle: a cyber-physical system approach; hybrid-learning-based classification and quantitative inference of driver braking intensity of an electrified vehicle; Levenberg–marquardt backpropagation training of multilayer neural networks for state estimation of a safety-critical cyber-physical system.
3. Some future work could be included in the last section.
Author Response
I do appreciate your comments and suggestions, which are positive and constructive. I have polished and revised the paper based on your feedback, hopefully the revised version could address the issues and be accepted by the journal.
Point 1: The novelty and contribution of this work need to be further clarified.
Response 1: The contribution of the paper have been demonstrated at the very end of introduction section now.
Point 2: So as to extend the readership in different areas of EV development, some recent works could be added in the literature review, for example (not required): driving-style-based co-design optimization of an automated electric vehicle: a cyber-physical system approach; hybrid-learning-based classification and quantitative inference of driver braking intensity of an electrified vehicle; Levenberg–marquardt backpropagation training of multilayer neural networks for state estimation of a safety-critical cyber-physical system.
Response 2: The relevant reference has been added based on your suggestion.
Point 2: Some future work could be included in the last section.
Response 3: The future work was also supplemented at the conclusion section.
Finally, thank you for your review again.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article concerns important and current problems and presents the original approach of the Authors. Various simulations were carried out and experimental tests were mentioned. On the other hand, the article has a number of uncertainties. Any weaknesses and shortcomings must be corrected so that the article can be published in World Electric Vehicle Journal.
First of all, one should mentioned here that the English language used in the manuscript is poor. During reading some sentences, it is not clear, what did the Authors want to express. It certainly does not facilitate the correct understanding of the article. Even a title of the paper is not free of language errors. At this stage, indicating all the mistakes makes no sense, because there are too many of them. After improvement the article, Native-Speaker's proofreading is recommended in terms of the correctness of the terminology used, as well as of the grammatical correctness of sentences.
The main problems of the article are following:
Reference devoted to problems of mounting of powertrains in electric vehicles will be welcomed in the introduction section (if it is possible). At this moment only articles about generic problems as well as internal combustion engines mounting problems can be seen.
Section 2 - a laconic description of the problem is given, but the lack of any relevant data of the vehicle or powertrain (materials, weight, performance, etc.). It is not known how the powertrain is mounted to the vehicle body (rigidly, via rubber element). Absolutely nothing.
Section 3 - similarly, only a general description of ADAMS. The forces occurring for selected conditions are given, but it is not known what the conditions are. There is still no input data given. Only a general layout of powertrain is presented, but without any dimensions.
lines 111-128 - general description for ANSYS Software. There is nothing special here from the point of view of the article topic.
Figure 3 - far too small and illegible. The drawing legend is completely unreadable, even at 600% zoom.
Section 4.2 - fatigue analysis. No data was given on vibration forcing. It is not clear how the results from table 3 were obtained.
Figures 4 and 5 - exactly the same as for Figure 3. Definitely too small and illegible.
The results in table 5 - it is not clear how the stresses reduction was obtained. Please add needed description.
Section 5.2 - Is it original paper or tutorial for Ansys? We already know that the motor cover improvement was done automatically, but actually what was improved in this element?
Figures 6 and 7 have the same remark as for all previous ones too small and illegible. Is this a problem to put all the figures significantly larger? Is there a page limit or is it something else?
Section 7 - experimental research - less than half of the description page about the maybe most interesting part of the article in principle without any evidence. Even one picture or diagram was not presented.
The summary is approximately so concise as the abstract of paper. The obtained results should be commented in the summary section much more wider.
Authors did not give information about their contributions to the paper, what was done by who.
In conclusion, the article should be significantly completed with the missing elements given above and corrected linguistically so that it can be published. In the current version, many crucial questions remain not clear.
Author Response
I do appreciate your comments and suggestions, which are positive and constructive. And I have to apologize for the inconvenience of reading brought by some small figures which may due to the page limitation. Moreover, I have polished and revised the paper based on your feedback and then it has been proofread by professional proofreaders. Hopefully the revised version could address the issues and be accepted by the journal.
Point 1: Reference devoted to problems of mounting of powertrains in electric vehicles will be welcomed in the introduction section (if it is possible). At this moment only articles about generic problems as well as internal combustion engines mounting problems can be seen.
Response 1: The related references of problems of mounting of powertrains in electric vehicles has been added.
Point 2: Section 2 - a laconic description of the problem is given, but the lack of any relevant data of the vehicle or powertrain (materials, weight, performance, etc.). It is not known how the powertrain is mounted to the vehicle body (rigidly, via rubber element). Absolutely nothing.
Response 2: I do apologize for that, we will notice that and do further research in future work.
Point 3: Section 3 - similarly, only a general description of ADAMS. The forces occurring for selected conditions are given, but it is not known what the conditions are. There is still no input data given. Only a general layout of powertrain is presented, but without any dimensions.
Response 3: It is mainly a general model and method without any additional dimensions.
Point 4: Lines 111-128 - general description for ANSYS Software. There is nothing special here from the point of view of the article topic.
Response 4: We have deleted some general steps to make it looks more concise.
Point 5: Figure 3 - far too small and illegible. The drawing legend is completely unreadable, even at 600% zoom.
Response 5: The figure has been enlarged and unnecessary figures have been merged to other figures.
Point 6: Section 4.2 - fatigue analysis. No data was given on vibration forcing. It is not clear how the results from table 3 were obtained.
Response 6: The issue has been interpreted in Section 4.2.
Point 7: Figures 4 and 5 - exactly the same as for Figure 3. Definitely too small and illegible.
Response 7: The figures have been enlarged and unnecessary figures have been merged to other figures.
Point 8: Section 5.2 - Is it original paper or tutorial for Ansys? We already know that the motor cover improvement was done automatically, but actually what was improved in this element?
Response 8: Section 5.2 has been deleted now.
Point 9: Figures 6 and 7 have the same remark as for all previous ones too small and illegible. Is this a problem to put all the figures significantly larger? Is there a page limit or is it something else?
Response 9: The figures have been enlarged and unnecessary figures have been merged to other figures.
Point 10: Section 7 - experimental research - less than half of the description page about the maybe most interesting part of the article in principle without any evidence. Even one picture or diagram was not presented.
Response 10: We have made some adjustments in the manuscript.
Point 11: The summary is approximately so concise as the abstract of paper. The obtained results should be commented in the summary section much more wider.
Response 11: The conclusion section has been improved and supplemented.
Point 12: Authors did not give information about their contributions to the paper, what was done by who.
Response 12: The author contributions part has been added.
Finally, thank you for your review again.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Reviewer appreciates effort of Authors in improving their paper. The revised version of manuscript has been improved enough to be published in WEVJ. Needed information has been added. Some parts of text was rewritten in more clear form. Figures looks more legible now.
