Review Reports - A Fast, Decentralized, Self-Aligned Carrier Method for Multicellular Converters

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please specify in the captions of figures 21, 22 and 23 what traces (a) and (b) refer to.

The writings in Fig. 24 are not readable.

In the conclusion you say:

"Besides, the article also proves that the reconfiguration time of the system are superior to the conventional algorithm."

That is, is a time superior to an algorithm?

Are you sure it's superior?

Careful proofreading is needed by someone proficient in English so that problems with rough language usage can be resolved.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Comments and suggestions:
Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. All the added materials and changes are highlighted with red in the manuscript.

1. Please specify in the captions of figures 21, 22 and 23 what traces (a) and (b) refer to.
Answer: Thank you for your kind mind. We are very sorry for such a simple error. The author believes that such a suggestion will help improve the quality of the paper. We have corrected some simple errors and carefully checked the possible problems in the paper. The mind mistake have been corrected accordingly in red (please refer to Fig.22, Fig.24, Fig.26 in the revised manuscript because the original Fig.21, Fig.22 and Fig.23 has been renamed as Fig.26, Fig.24 and Fig.22)

2. The writings in Fig. 24 are not readable.
Answer: Thank you very much for your kind mind. We are very sorry for such a simple error. The author believes that such a suggestion will help improve the quality of the paper. We have corrected some simple errors and carefully checked the possible problems in the paper. The writtings missed in Fig.24 have been inserted (please refer to Fig.29 in the revised manuscript because the original Fig.24 has been renamed as Fig.29).

3. In the conclusion you say:

"Besides, the article also proves that the reconfiguration time of the system are superior to the conventional algorithm."

That is, is a time superior to an algorithm?

Are you sure it's superior?

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable questions. Your questions/comments encourage us to conduct more study as well as modify the text in order to show the advantages of proposed method. As result, the session 4.4 “Evaluate the system configuration time” and 4.5 “Evaluate the system reconfiguration time” have been added for this purpose. Furthermore, the reconfiguration time study between conventional and proposed method have been conducted by experiment and shown in Fig.47 and Fig.48 (as in Fig.42 and Fig.43 of the 1^st version of manuscript), proving that DSA-PSC method is faster than the conventional CPSC method. At the end, we modified the conclusion as follows:

“….simulation and experimental study in case of reconfiguration process for conventional and proposed methods also approve the advantages of the proposed DSA-PSC method in terms of lower reconfiguration time …..”

Careful proof reading is needed by someone proficient in English so that problems with rough language usage can be resolved.
Answer: Many thanks for your suggestions. We are very sorry for such a rough language usage in 1st version of paper. The authors believe that such a suggestion will help improve the quality of the paper. Actually, we have radically revised the whole paper and corrected some errors and carefully checked the possible problems in the paper. The modified parts have been highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Figure 24. has cutted labels .

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Comments and Suggestions:
Answer: Thank you very much for your kind comments and suggestion. All the added materials and changes are highlighted with red in the manuscript.

Figure 24. has cutted labels

Answer: Thank you very much for your kind mind. We are very sorry for such a simple error. The author believes that such a suggestion will help improve the quality of the paper. We have corrected some simple errors and carefully checked the possible problems in the paper. The writtings missed in Fig.24 have been inserted (please refer to Fig.29 in the revised manuscript because the original Fig.24 has been renamed as Fig.29).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations for the amazing work. I just have found several minor things to correct:

-Figures 21-23(a) and (b). For each figure title, give a subtitle for (a) and (b) subfigs.

-Lines 292-298. Delve more into details when comparing figures. Talk about more aspects when comparing.

-Lines 303-305. Give a few more details about how you configure the DSP LaunchPad Development kit and its code compiler, such as the code sequence that you have programmed in a generic form.

-Figure24. Improve the readability of this image. It is not possible to read the text fields.

-Figure 25. Explain a bit more the Matlab-Simulink-DSP connection and the relation with the called DSP TMS320F28379D, and the connection of each cell controller with each IGBT.

-Page 21 of 26. Give a figure number and title to the figure at the bottom of the page.

-Figures 26 to 43(a)-(b) :

-Give a description in Figure subtitles of the (a) and (b) part separately.

-Improve the quality of images. It is difficult to read the numbers.

-Indicate the units of vertical axis (?/DIV) and horizontal axis (microseconds/DIV), when missing.

-Conclusions. Indicate areas of improvement of your algorithm or future work lines.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Comments:
Congratulations for the amazing work. I just have found several minor things to correct
Answer: Thank you very much for your comments and kind suggestions.

1. Figures 21-23(a) and (b). For each figure title, give a subtitle for (a) and (b) subfigs.
Answer: Many thanks to reviewer for the suggestions. We are very sorry for such a simple error. The author believes that such a suggestion will help improve the quality of the paper. We have corrected some simple errors and carefully checked the possible problems in the paper. The mind mistake have been corrected accordingly in red (please refer to Fig.22, Fig.24, Fig.26 in the revised manuscript because the original Fig.21, Fig.22 and Fig.23 has been renamed as Fig.26, Fig.24 and Fig.22).

Lines 292-298. Delve more into details when comparing figures. Talk about more aspects when comparing.
Answer: Thank you very much for your suggestions. The author believes that such suggestions can make the paper more scientific.

Lines 303-305. Give a few more details about how you configure the DSP LaunchPad Development kit and its code compiler, such as the code sequence that you have programmed in a generic form.

Answer: Thank you very much for your suggestions. The author believes that such a suggestion will help improve the quality of the paper. We have revised the Session 5 – Experimental results and modified the content of this part in order to explain how we can configure the DSP LaunchPad Development kit and its code compiler as well as how to process the programming sequence (lines 321-332).

The programming sequence is conducted in three steps: 1) the model of the control algorithm is built using Matlab/Simulink; 2) the Real-Time Workshop® in Matlab generates C code file from this model; 3) The C code file is downloaded into the DSP board using the CCS compiler.

The modified parts have been highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Figure24. Improve the readability of this image. It is not possible to read the text fields.

Answer: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We are very sorry for such a simple error. The writtings missed in Fig.24 have been inserted (please refer to Fig.29 in the revised manuscript because the original Fig.24 has been renamed as Fig.29).

Figure 25. Explain a bit more the Matlab-Simulink-DSP connection and the relation with the called DSP TMS320F28379D, and the connection of each cell controller with each IGBT.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comments. The author believes that such suggestions can make the paper more scientific. We have revised the Session 5 – Experimental results and modified the content of this part in order to explain how we can configure the DSP LaunchPad Development kit and its code compiler as well as how to process the programming sequence (lines 321-332). Furthermore, we have added 3 more litterature works [32-34] in references in term of rapidly programming of DSP TI C2000 using Matlab/Simulink. Regarding the connection of each cell controller, we have provided the information in session 5.1 and 5.2 as follows: 1) Fig. 30 (the original Fig.25) shows the connection diagrams for DSA-PSC method; 2) Table 8 shows the function of control pins of DSP for algorithm DSA-PSC; 3) Fig. 38 (the original Fig.33) shows the connection diagrams for DSA-LSC method; Table 10 the function of control pins of DSP for algorithm DSA-LSC.

The modified parts have been highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Page 21 of 26. Give a figure number and title to the figure at the bottom of the page.

Answer: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We are very sorry for such a simple error. The author believes that such a suggestion will help improve the quality of the paper. We have corrected some simple errors and carefully checked the possible problems in the paper. We have made format changes to the revised manuscript.

Figures 26 to 43(a)-(b) :

-Give a description in Figure subtitles of the (a) and (b) part separately.

-Improve the quality of images. It is difficult to read the numbers.

-Indicate the units of vertical axis (?/DIV) and horizontal axis (microseconds/DIV), when missing.

Answer: Many thanks to reviewer for the suggestions. We are very sorry for such a simple error. The author believes that such a suggestion will help improve the quality of the paper. The mind mistake have been corrected accordingly in red (please refer to Fig.31 to Fig.37, Fig.39 to Fig.48 in the revised manuscript because the original Fig.26 to 43 has been renamed as Fig.31 to Fig.48). The quality of images have been revised carefully and modified as needed (please refer to Fig.29 to Fig.48). The units of vertical axis and horizontal axis have been indicated accordingly (please refer to Fig.31 to Fig.37, Fig.39 to Fig.48 in the revised manuscript because the original Fig.26 to 43 has been renamed as Fig.31 to Fig.48). All modified parts have been highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Conclusions. Indicate areas of improvement of your algorithm or future work lines.

Answer: Thank you very much for your suggestions. The proper conclusion makes the paper more scientific. We have carefully revised and modified the content of Session 6. Conclusion. The extended content have been added with information: 1) The descriptions of algorithm of both methods; 2) the advantages of the proposed methods in comparison with the conventional decentralized phase-shifted method. The modified parts have been highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

In this manuscript, the authors proposed a fast-decentralized self-aligned carrier method for multicellular converter. The manuscript consists of 43 figures and 10 tables. It is very hard to follow. I suggest authors to reduce the size of manuscript. Authors can submit less important information as a supplementary file or appendix.

Abstract is not written properly.
Literature review should be wider. Reference list includes only 24 references.
Section 3 (New decentralized self-aligned carrier method) should be renamed. Why authors named it as ‘New’?
Improve Fig. 24.
Conclusions should be more related to the research conducted. They should not be just a description of what has been done.

I think that the manuscript has merit for publication after extensive editing. The writing style lacks the novelty of the work.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Comments:
In this manuscript, the authors proposed a fast-decentralized self-aligned carrier method for multicellular converter. The manuscript consists of 43 figures and 10 tables. It is very hard to follow. I suggest authors to reduce the size of manuscript. Authors can submit less important information as a supplementary file or appendix.
Answer: Thank you very much for your comments and kind suggestions. We are very sorry about this burden content of the manuscript. Actually, we have seriously discussed about this suggestion but we faced to many difficulties to reduce the size of article:

- the paper presents two proposed methods in order to reduce the system configuration and reconfiguration time, as well as to overcome some restrictions of conventional updating rules and therefore, we need to describe these methods in details;

- the main advantages of proposed methods are based on 5 points: 1) the system can operate with any number of carriers; 2) the system can start up from any value of carrier-phases or carrier-levels, including zero point; 3) the adaptability in case a cell controller is inserted or removed, the system will reach the steady-state after predefined reconfiguration time; 4) the reduction of configuration time of the proposed DSA-PSC method in comparison with the conventional decentralized phase-shifted method; 5) reconfiguration process of the proposed DSA-PSC method in terms of lower reconfiguration time and zero inter-carrier phase-shifts relative error.
Thus, we need to demonstrate all these advantages.

- conducting the simulation study as well as experimental study to validate the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed DSA-PSC and DSA-LSC methods.

So, we are highly appreciate if the Reviewer could allow us to keep this style of presentation.

Abstract is not written properly
Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The reviewer's suggestion can make the paper more rigorous. So, we have enhanced the abstract content with more information about the proposed method: features, advantages, evaluation…. The modified parts have been highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

2. Literature review should be wider. Reference list includes only 24 references.
Answer: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The correct literature review makes the paper more scientific. In the revised manuscript, the reference list have been enlarged with 10 more selected references by adding 7 references in Session 1 and 3 references in Session 5. We have carefully revised and modified the content of Session 1 (Introduction), especially the part of literature review. The modified parts have been highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

3. Section 3 (New decentralized self-aligned carrier method) should be renamed. Why authors named it as ‘New’?

Answer: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We are agree with your suggestions. It is a “new approach” different from a “new method”. Thus, the name have been changed as “Proposed decentralized self-aligned carrier method” in Session 3 as well as marked in red in the revised manuscript.

4. Improve Fig. 24.
Answer: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We are very sorry for such a simple error. The author believes that such a suggestion will help improve the quality of the paper. We have corrected some simple errors and carefully checked the possible problems in the paper. The writtings missed in Fig.24 have been inserted (please refer to Fig.29 in the revised manuscript because the original Fig.24 has been renamed as Fig.29).

Conclusions should be more related to the research conducted. They should not be just a description of what has been done

I think that the manuscript has merit for publication after extensive editing. The writing style lacks the novelty of the work.

Answer: Many thanks for your comments. We are very sorry for such a lack of writing style. The authors believe that such a suggestion will help improve the quality of the paper. Actually, we have radically revised the whole paper and corrected some errors and carefully checked the possible problems in the paper. We also have changed the writing style to shown more evidently the novelty of the article, especially the advantages of the proposed method. All modified parts have been highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors addressed reviewers' remarks in the revised manuscript.

Avoid abbreviations in the abstract.
Avoid lengthy and clumsy sentences (e.g. Line 31-33, 'and' used three times in this sentence).
Cite the appropriate reference for Fig. 1. If possible then please do not add figures in the introduction section.

The manuscript can be accepted after minor corrections.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Comments:
Authors addressed reviewers' remarks in the revised manuscript. The manuscript can be accepted after minor corrections.

Answer: Thank you very much for your kind comments and suggestions. The authors believe that the reviewer suggestions will help improve the quality of the paper. All the corrections are highlighted with blue in the manuscript.

1. Avoid abbreviations in the abstract
Answer: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The reviewer's suggestion can make the abstract more scientific. We are agree with your suggestion. The abbreviations in the abstract have been substituted by the full terminations (i.e. LS-PWM: level-shifted pulsewidth modulation; PS-PWM: phase-shifted pulsewidth modulation). The modified parts have been highlighted in blue in the revised manuscript.

2. Avoid lengthy and clumsy sentences (e.g. Line 31-33, 'and' used three times in this sentence).
Answer: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We are very sorry for such a lengthy and clumsy sentence. In the revised manuscript, this sentence have been modified as belows:

Previous sentence: “The simulation and experiment results show the validity and effectiveness of the proposed method especially in the case of dynamic configuration and reconfiguration of the system built with a large number of switching-cells”
Current sentence: “The simulations and experimental results are presented in detail to show the validity and effectiveness of the proposed methods. Further, thorough simulations on multiphase converters with different number of cells also show that the proposed method is much faster than the conventional method in both configuration and reconfiguration process, especially in case the system has a large number of cells”.

All modified sentences have been highlighted in blue in the revised manuscript.

3. Cite the appropriate reference for Fig. 1. If possible then please do not add figures in the introduction section.

Answer: Thank you very much for your suggestions and comments. The authors believe that the reviewer suggestion will help improve the quality of the paper. The references [1]-[2] and [3]-[4] have been cited for Fig.1(a) and Fig.1(b) respectively. The modified parts have been highlighted in blue in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx