Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work proposes a Control strategy of doubly-fed induction generator under zero voltage fault of power grid. Before being published, this work needs to cope with some concerns as follows:

1)In the Introduction section, please summarize the specific contribution points by comparing with the existing studies. 2)English writing must be improved. 3)The references are too old and should be supplemented with some recent research, like some classical fault-tolerant control methods. some studies should be discussed such as adaptive saturated tracking control for spacecraft proximity operations via integral terminal sliding mode technique, anti-saturation adaptive finite-time neural network based fault-tolerant tracking control for a quadrotor uav with external disturbances. 4) The importance of this paper's approach should be emphasized. 5) Abbreviations should be summarized before Introductory section to make them easier to read.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the opinion of this reviewer the article is well written. There is a good survey of the state of the art followed by an excellent theoretical analysis. Simulation results are consistent. I have only 2 points of correction in English. Page 8, line 240 the correct word is grid. Page 10, line 314 I believe the authors wanted to reference the vector module. Congrats on the work!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper studies a control strategy for DFIG under zero voltage faults.

The theoretical study is unclear and based on approximations. The modeling of the superconductor is done with a function of time, which is totally wrong.

There is no experimental verification and the simulation of the control is very simple, a single case.

Simulation results are unreliable. Figure 12a presents a rotor current of frequency 50Hz, when the slip is -0.2, to which 10 Hz corresponds.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors recognize in the answers that the frequency in the rotor must be different from 50Hz (Fig. 4.5) depending on the slip. But in the paper Figures 12 a, b and c, still have the rotor frequency of 50Hz.

I consider this very unserious and makes me doubt the quality of the paper.

 

In conclusion, my opinion is that the paper should be rejected.