Hybrid ANFIS-PI-Based Optimization for Improved Power Conversion in DFIG Wind Turbine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Upon reviewing the paper, several critical comments have been identified that could enhance the quality of the research paper. Here are the revised comments:

1. Clarify the novelty and advantages of the proposed method to highlight its unique contributions and purpose clearly.

2. The introduction needs significant expansion and restructuring. It should include the motivation for the research, a clear explanation of the main objectives, and emphasize the improvements compared to previously published works. Additionally, the literature review must be improved to better state the contribution of this research and should consider recent works with similar objectives, such as:

[1]Sayeh, Karim Fathi, et al. "Utilizing Fuzzy Logic Control and Neural Networks Based on Artificial Intelligence Techniques to Improve Power Quality in Doubly Fed Induction Generator‐Based Wind Turbine System." International Journal of Energy Research 2025.1 (2025): 5985904.

[2] ZIANE, Djamel, et al. "Fuzzy logic-enhanced direct power control for wind turbines with doubly fed induction generators." Results in Engineering 24 (2024): 103557.

[3] Ouari, Kamel, and Youcef Belkhier. "Model predictive direct torque algorithm for coordinated electrical grid operation of wind energy conversion system-based doubly fed induction generator." International Journal of Modelling and Simulation (2024): 1-14.

3. The research's motivation should be explicitly stated, and the paper's innovation must be adequately emphasized.

4. Both the abstract and introduction sections are too concise, and they fail to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of the paper's contributions. Extensive revision is necessary, particularly in the last paragraph of the introduction.

5. Present the recommended method in comparison with other publications from the literature to demonstrate its superiority and effectiveness.

6. Elaborate on the advantages of the proposed control version in comparison to Ref[1] in my comments. Clearly explain how the chosen control version is better then that already published!.

7-what are the drawbacks of your controller, they should be stated in the revised version as well.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Check the quality of english language

Author Response

Please refer to attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. It is recommended to maintain uniform font styles throughout the manuscript. For instance, the symbol λ in Lines 206–217 appears inconsistent with the main text font. Additionally, standard notation conventions should be prioritized (e.g., using ρ for air density and J for the moment of inertia).
2. The meaning of the symbol 𝛽 in Equations (1) and (2) is not explicitly defined. Clarification is necessary to ensure reproducibility.
3. The placement of vector symbols in Equations (6)–(9) is incorrect (e.g., misplaced boldface or arrow notation). This should be rectified for mathematical rigor.
4. The ANFIS-PI model was validated using a stepwise wind speed profile. However, real-world wind speeds are inherently turbulent and pulsating. Would the authors consider testing the model under more complex, stochastic wind conditions to strengthen their conclusions?
5. The authors state that they "obtained pre-trained data from the PI controller." A detailed description of the specific data types (e.g., error signals, control outputs, or system states) used for pre-training is essential for reproducibility.

6. The manuscript mentions training ANFIS using "simulation results," but critical details are missing: What simulation conditions (e.g., wind regimes, turbine parameters) generated this data? How was the dataset partitioned (training/validation/testing)? A thorough explanation of the data’s origin and generation methodology is strongly encouraged.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. It is recommended to maintain uniform font styles throughout the manuscript. For instance, the symbol λ in Lines 206–217 appears inconsistent with the main text font. Additionally, standard notation conventions should be prioritized (e.g., using ρ for air density and J for the moment of inertia).
2. The meaning of the symbol 𝛽 in Equations (1) and (2) is not explicitly defined. Clarification is necessary to ensure reproducibility.
3. The placement of vector symbols in Equations (6)–(9) is incorrect (e.g., misplaced boldface or arrow notation). This should be rectified for mathematical rigor.
4. The ANFIS-PI model was validated using a stepwise wind speed profile. However, real-world wind speeds are inherently turbulent and pulsating. Would the authors consider testing the model under more complex, stochastic wind conditions to strengthen their conclusions?
5. The authors state that they "obtained pre-trained data from the PI controller." A detailed description of the specific data types (e.g., error signals, control outputs, or system states) used for pre-training is essential for reproducibility.

6. The manuscript mentions training ANFIS using "simulation results," but critical details are missing: What simulation conditions (e.g., wind regimes, turbine parameters) generated this data? How was the dataset partitioned (training/validation/testing)? A thorough explanation of the data’s origin and generation methodology is strongly encouraged.

Author Response

Please refer to attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Kindly, find my comments are attached. for your record.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Grammar and Syntax

Line 17:"Artificial Intelligent" → "Artificial Intelligence"** (correct term). 

 Line 21: "parameters uncertainties" →"parameter uncertainties" (singular noun for compound adjective). 

Line 20: "in the same time" → "at the same time" (idiomatic correction). 

Line 56: "employing are doubly Fed Induction generators" →"employ doubly fed induction generators (DFIG)" (capitalization and word order). 

 Line 92: Missing closing bracket for citation [11]. 

Awkward Phrasing: 

 Line 19-20: "However, these conventional methods improve control efficiency, but in the same time, they often face limitations..." → "While conventional methods improve efficiency, they struggle with..." (remove redundancy). 

Line 15-16: "abrupt changes in wind speed, which can lead to fluctuations in power output" → "rapid wind speed variations causing power fluctuations" (concise). 

Redundancy:

Line 13: "contributing to global energy demand" is redundant after "promoting sustainability and renewable power solutions." 

Line 49-50: "designed with advanced aerodynamics to maximize energy capture across varying wind conditions" →"aerodynamically optimized to maximize energy capture under varying wind conditions"(simpler phrasing). 

Technical Jargon:

Line 67-70: Overly dense explanation of RSC/GSC roles. Simplify: 

The RSC regulates rotor current and reactive power, while the GSC stabilizes DC-link voltage and ensures grid compliance."

Paragraph Length: Section 1.1 has dense paragraphs. Split into shorter segments (e.g., separate DFIG advantages from WTS stages). 

Transition Phrases: Use connectors like "Furthermore," "In contrast," or "Consequently" to improve flow between ideas. 

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well revised, it can be accepted