The Suppression of Modular Multi-Level Converter Circulation Based on the PIR Virtual Impedance Strategy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The work presented in the paper is the need of the hour. I have the following concerns,
1. Make a comparison table of your work with the other works cited in this paper to show how unique your work is.
2. Highlight the novelty of the proposed work.
3. In figures 7a and 7b, the current is unbalanced, and the voltage is balanced. Why?
4. In figures 8a,8b,12b, and 13b, the magnitude of the THD are not fully covered. Why?
5. Whether figure 9 is correct?
6. The experimental validation is missing.
7. Rewrite the conclusion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The given article treats an actual problem - the charging and discharging process of EV batteries. The paper focuses on the strategy based on MMC harmonic circulation by combining PIR and virtual impedance for the typical MMC system. The title of the article is appropriate for the content. The abstract is concise and summarizes all essential information. The reference list of the article list consists of 31 scientific works and is relevant. The research question is not clearly outlined at the end of the introduction section.
The points in the article which need clarification and suggestions for what could be done to improve the article:
1. What do the authors mean, indicating in line 24 "As one of the representatives of sustainable new energy, electric vehicles have received..."? EV is not representative of new energy.
2. It's not clear what are the sources of the equations.
3. In order to raise the overall strengths of the article and the impact it might have in the field, it's better to widen the explanation of how the authors verified the feasibility of their control strategy (pkt. 4.2.1).
4. It's recommended to alter the discussion section (lines 374-384). The discussion section is not abstract. The results should be discussed from multiple angles and placed into context without being overinterpreted in the discussion section.
5. Lack of conclusion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have revised the manuscript carefully. It can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
It should be better:
1. To сhange the order of discussion and conclusion sections.
2. To move the text between lines 404...413 to the discussion section.
After the given minor revision the article can be published.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
