State-Feedback Control of Interleaved Buck–Boost DC–DC Power Converter with Continuous Input Current for Fuel Cell Energy Sources: Theoretical Design and Experimental Validation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, below you will find my comments and suggestions: 

Lines: 12,  - double space

Figure 15: the caption above the Figure says "duty ration"

Lines:  74, 83, 85, 104, 197, 214 , 293, 295, 297, 348, 360 - a space required between words (probably some kind of a conversion problem)

Line 59: Buck converter (not convertor)

Line 67: '..that topology requires less components..' - I don't get this sentence. Less components than buck or boost converter? I think there should be something to compare.

Figure 2: "Boost converter only" is not visible entirely

Line 75: there is something odd in the sentence, "The proposed Buck-Boost is an interleaving topology.."

Lines 86-90: You write that using N parallel converters enables us to reduce the ripple current by 1/N and the inductance value by 1/N. I suppose that what you meant was that the current ripple can be reduced N times, and so can the inductance value (if I am wrong, then just let me know). On the other hand, if you use interleaved control between N converters and reduce the inductance N times, you will not get N times smaller current ripple. 

Line 100: I suppose there should be 'interleaved' instead of 'interlaced'

Line 160:  'useful' instead of 'use ful'

Line 190:  'duty ratio' instead of 'duty ration'

Line 207: Why are you using 'U' for duty ratio instead of 'D'?

Line 232: 'relationship' instead of 'relation ship'

Figure 17: please check if all names are visible (some of them are cut, and some of them are invisible on the white background

Table 3: there are no units

Table 5: there are no units

Figure 24 caption: "pulse wide modulation' or 'pulse width modulation?

Line 415: remove 'A' article from 'power resistors'

I would suggest putting some text with explanations (maybe a description of the results) between Figures 18 - 24. 

Author Response

The authors are grateful to the reviewers for their helpful comments. The paper has been revised in accordance with the reviewer’s comments and suggestions. The changes made are described in the following responses to each Reviewer comment. The changes are highlighted in the paper using red color. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well written and presented good formulation and results, but the authors are advised to address the following points

1. Authors should specify novelty in this work. This step can be realized by the presentation of a comparison table.

2. The literature survey includes some valuable papers, however, is not sufficient. Please add more references and discussion in the abstract. The following references may be helpful for you. Optimizing controller, classical controller design, Frequency switching control

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772671122000122

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/19/10699/htm

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9293396

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9063477

https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/7/1618

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9088439

3. Why author did not select ISE , IAE and ITAE performance INDEXES? any specific reason for this?

Author Response

The authors are grateful to the reviewers for their helpful comments. The paper has been revised in accordance with the reviewer’s comments and suggestions. The changes made are described in the following responses to each reviewer's comment. The changes are highlighted in the paper using red color.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been improved. Although I still have some doubts regarding the sentence in line 68. When words such as 'less' or 'better' are used there should always be a reference. For example, you can say that a specific converter requires few components, which would mean that a small amount of components is required. But if you use 'less' you compare one thing to another, so for example "a buck converter requires less components then sepic or cuk converters". The same goes for the word 'better'. If you don't want to use comparison then you should write something like "Furthermore, the proposed topology of the Buck-Boost converter requires few components and hence features good reliability" (this is just a suggestion). 

Author Response

The authors are grateful to the reviewers for their helpful comments. The paper has been revised in accordance with the reviewer’s comments and suggestions. The changes made are described in the following responses to each reviewer comment. The changes are highlighted in the paper using red color.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx