---
# System prepended metadata

title: PSO - Respostas (IEEE Access)

---


# PSO - Respostas (IEEE Access)
---
## Reviewer: 1  
---

#### 1. Your Abstract is missing the contributions (it is not clear that the method is your proposal) and a better resume of the results. In fact, initial phrases are useless. The core of your abstract is the next: "The method proposed to design the weighing matrices of the MBPC is the Weighted-DynamicObjective Constraint-Handling Method Particle Swarm Optimization (WDOCHM-PSO), an improvement  of an existing method (DOCHM-PSO), that permits to dealing with constraints, faster and more accurate than the original one. Additionally, the proposed MBPC uses an incremental state-space prediction model, which has the advantage to avoid the flux disturbance. Finally, experimental results are used to endorse the proposed method.". Just clear the contribution and put numbers when you talk about results at the end (the last phrase is useless as is).  
`Lucas`

- Mudar o abstract
- Não está clara a contribuição


#### 2. Abstract, correct English: "that permits to dealing with constraints".  
`Juan`

- Corrigir o inglês do abstract depois que eu modificar o abstract
- (Se falar que o inglês está ruim) Dá a desculpa que iremos pagar um revisor caso o paper seja aceito em minor review.

#### 3. As I understand you use this in a wind turbine, wouldn't it be better to test with NMPC? "There were proposed several VC schemes for DFIG-based wind turbines, which includes the classical PI [5], Deadbeat Control [6], [7], Neuro-Fuzzy Control [8], [9], Sliding Mode Control (SMC) [10] and Predictive Controllers [11], [12] with good performance. At least, some references about its use? There are some papers (there from Brazil) in this subject:  
`Lucas`

- Procurar referências adicionais do NMPC e justificar o porquê usou este controlador.

#### 4. Put the word "Eq." previous to them: "In (8) and (9)," -> "In Eq. 8 and 9,", being olite with the reader. Do this for every one (eg. " given by (10)" -> " given by Eq. 10", and so on).  
`Juan`

- Só trocar a ordem da equação

#### 5. "DESIGN OF WEIGHING MATRICES USING PSO" -> "DESIGN OF WEIGHTING MATRICES USING PSO"  
`Juan`

- Erro de inglês
- Corrigir apenas

##### 6. You put some not polite phrases that takes into account that the reaader is an expert, or else you think the reader should be. For example: "It can be noted that the proposed MBPC, using the incremental space-state model and the PSO application to the weighting matrices, allows to control the rotor current components. The quadrature settling time, tss,q = 1.1 ms, is better to the result found in the simulated case as depicted in Figure 9b.". I thin you can be more polite, **never use noted**, is clear, use "**can be noticed instead**", e.g "It is clear that stator" -> "It can be noticed that stator". 
`Juan`

- Mudar para voz passiva (Deixar mais formal ou polido o texto) 

##### 7. Again here (Comparison with other controllers): "It is noticed" -> " It can be noticed".  
`Juan`

- Mesma coisa do anterior

##### 8. You talk about controller for a specific situation, as you have proposed a way "to design the weighing matrices of an MBPC cost function using WDOCHM-PSO." applicaable to turbines, so just a last question (clear it somewhere), I would like to see more discussion about the general applicability of this kind of controller, for example, is it applicable to other situations as the NMPC proposed down there: [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2012.12.008](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2012.12.008) , [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574717000637](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574717000637)  
__Lucas__
- Aplicação do método do PSO para o controlador das referências que ele sugeriu

---
# Reviewer: 2  
---
 
`Recommendation: Reject (update and resubmit encouraged)`
  
## Comments: 
#### 1. The abstract should be re-written since too many background information are given. These parts should be given in introduction part.  
`Lucas`
- Mesmo do anterior.

#### 2. The present design is detailed, and is solid for motor control.  
`Alfeu`
- Não entendi
- Falar isso: _Uma estratégia de controle para um gerador focado no sistema eólico._

#### 3. From experiments, measurement noise seems a little heavy, how to consider noise effect in the controller design? Output feedback MPC control might be a suitable choice, some results can be found in __'output feedback model predictive control of hydraulic systems with disturbances compensation'__, please cite and discuss this aspect.
`Juan`

- Como considerar o ruido no design? (Responder)
- Citar este paper e falar do ruído.
- `Lucas` vai ajudar posteriormente

#### 4. A guideline for controller tuning method should be given, i.e., how to choose controller parameters and gains.  
`Lucas`
- Colocar o algoritmo?
- _Perguntar para Alfeu_

#### 5. For the employed MPC method, dc motor is tested, however, the dc motor control has been developed a lot, especially nonlinear based control, since it can handle nonlinear effects, while the method in this paper is a linear one, see __'adaptive robust control of DC motors with extended state observer',__ please enhance the introduction with this method. Experimental comparison will be better to ensure the effectiveness.
`Juan`

- Citar a referência dele lá. 
- __Experimental comparison will be better to ensure the effectiveness__: Olhar o paper dele e vê se tem algo que encaixa, se não tiver diz que são sistemas diferentes.