Research on Cascaded Single Phase PFC Based on Predictive PI Control
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- The linearization of Equation (1) is not correct since Vdc is a time-varying waveform.
- Stability of the system should be given.
- Experiments should be given. Simulations are not enough
- The overall control block diagram should be given.
- The principle of predictive PI control should be introduced.
Author Response
Dear review experts, thank you very much for putting forward many professional opinions, which greatly inspired me. My answer to your comments is attached. Please see the attachment." in the box if you only upload an attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors propose the single-phase AC-DC converter with cascade structure and carrier phase shift modulation. The main contributions have been defined as follows: the cascaded multilevel structure can significantly reduce the volume of the charger, reduce the voltage drop borne by a single switch, and improve the power factor of the system output.
The presented manuscript has all the mandatory elements of the scientific publication, and the outlined material is structured. The subject of the manuscript is relevant. The title of the manuscript corresponds to the content and is informative. The introduction part of the manuscript clearly defines the field of research. The main studies of other authors on the manuscript's subject are analysed. The task is formulated and associated with the main part.
However, some remarks have during reading.
In the text on line 284, the authors state that "a system simulation model is built in PSIM. However, in Figures 7-10, the authors present experimental results further. It is not clear if a simulation was carried out, then the authors have not given the results, so we cannot compare the results of simulation and experiment. If, nevertheless, the authors presented the results of experimental studies, it would be necessary to show at least the scheme of the experimental rig. Also, the authors did not mention which power switches they used for the experimental studies with a switching frequency of 60 kHz.
The authors' statement in the conclusion that "The cascaded multilevel structure can greatly reduce the volume of the charger" is questionable concerning cascaded multilevel systems if we compare, for example, with the Single-Phase Single-Switch Vienna Rectifier.
Vahedi, H., Labbe, P.-A., & Al-Haddad, K. (2015). Single-Phase Single-Switch Vienna Rectifier as Electric Vehicle PFC Battery Charger. 2015 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC). doi:10.1109/vppc.2015.7353019
The text does not explain the acronym CHB and DPWM (although Fig. 2 shows the PWM designation). In equation (10), the bracket in the denominator is not closed.
The manuscript's text does not explain how λ coefficient is determined.
The text contains very small indices in the formulas and inscriptions in Figs. 4, 7-10.
On line 261, what does "This is a table." mean?
It would be interesting to compare the results obtained by the authors with the results in the following articles:
Acuna, P., Aguilera, R. P., Ghias, A. M. Y. M., Rivera, M., Baier, C. R., & Agelidis, V. G. (2017). Cascade-Free Model Predictive Control for Single-Phase Grid-Connected Power Converters. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 64(1), 285–294. doi:10.1109/tie.2016.2599478
Truntič, M., Konjedic, T., Šlibar, P., Milanovič, M., & Rodič, M. (2018). Integrated single-phase PFC charger for electric vehicles. Electrical Engineering. doi:10.1007/s00202-018-0714-8
Gu, J., Li, H., Zhang, H., Pan, C., & Luan, Z. (2021). Cascaded model‐free predictive control for single‐phase boost power factor correction converters. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 31(10), 5016–5032. doi:10.1002/rnc.5526
Author Response
Dear review experts, thank you very much for putting forward many professional opinions, which greatly inspired me. My answer to your comments is attached. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper proposes a single-phase boost power factor corrector (PFC) with cascade CHB topology for improving the charging speed and reducing the volume of electric vehicle chargers. The periodic single-phase AC input fluctuation of, produces a large ripple, with double power frequency, in the output voltage of AC-DC converter. The paper proposes a control method for improving the dynamic characteristics of the system without disturbing its steady-state performance.
Although the paper has the potential to be published, the authors should reply the following remarks in order to improve some of the aspects of the manuscript,
- CHB must be defined the first time it appears in the text.
- Introduction section. “The inductor volume accounts for about 36% of the total PFC volume.” It requires a reference. The same for “the inductor volume is determined by its volt-second.”
- Introduction section. The novelties and contributions of the paper must be further stressed, and also the advantages with respect current solutions.
- In eq. (10) a parenthesis in the denominator is missing.
- Line 227: “The first order Padé approximation of (5) is carried out:”. It is unclear how the authors apply this approximation.
- Line 262. “This is a table.” This end of line appears to be misplaced.
- Non-trivial equations along the document must be referred.
- Line 305. Please change KHZ by kHz.
- The authors claim that experiments are used to validate the method proposed here. However, only simulations are presented: “System Experimental Analysis: Based on the analysis of the principle and control strategy of single-phase cascaded PFC circuit, a system simulation model is built in PSIM”. Experiments is associated to experimental part and this paper does not include any experimental part. Therefore the authors are suggested to include an experimental part as one can deduct from their affirmations.
- More references from 2020, 2021 and 2022 are welcome.
I hope a revision of the manuscript based on these remarks can help to improve its quality and readability.
Author Response
Dear review expert, thank you very much for putting forward many professional opinions, which greatly inspired me. My answer to your comments is attached. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
the authors have answered most of my concerns. Predictive PI is proposed to deal with the system with long time delay. Please supplement why do you choose such a control scheme.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Figure 9 is called a Schematic diagram of predictive PI control. But it shows only a photograph of the printed circuit board, and the schematic diagram itself is not presented.
Author Response
- Figure 9 is called a Schematic diagram of predictive PI control. But it shows only a photograph of the printed circuit board, and the schematic diagram itself is not presented.
Dear reviewer, thank you very much for reading my manuscript carefully and asking a detailed question. My response to your comment is as follows:
Figure 9 is modified on the basis of copying Figure 4, but the title of Figure 4 is not changed. The title of Figure 9 is "photo of main circuit and control circuit of experimental prototype".
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have replied all my questions
Author Response
Thank you for your professional suggestions on my manuscript, which has greatly improved the quality of my manuscript.
