A Five-Level Converter in a Three-Level Mode for Common-Mode Leakage Current Suppression in PV-Generation Systems
, Sergey V. Brovanov 1, Evgeny V. Grishanov 1 and Svetlana M. Stennikova 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper was well thought through and presented.
Author Response
Accepted! Thanks for the positive review.
Reviewer 2 Report
[1]
The abstract is problematic, not sufficient, and not attractive.
This statement may not be true - "Many papers address the problem of transformerless structures, but few of them are aimed at conducting research on structures with multilevel converter topologies".
First, there have been extensive research and publications on multilevel multicell converters.
Second, multilevel converter topologies are mostly transformerless.
"The proposed engineering solutions" - this needs to be specified in more detail, i.e., in what aspects distinguish your research and methods from existing publications? Not clear to the examiner and readers.
"...are verified by experiment" - by how much is the agreement? What have you learned? Any new knowledge from this work? Not clear.
[2] Section 2 and Fig.1:
NPC converter - needs to be specified in the full name when first appeared (before Figure 1).
There should be a number of types of multilevel converters. Why the NPC type is selected here? Not clear and needs justification.
[3]
The introduction and literature survey sections should be better developed by reviewing more up-to-date publications, e.g. the states of the arts in the multilevel converter and strategies in addressing the control challenges as recommended below.
Li, J. Design and Control Optimisation of a Novel Bypass-embedded Multilevel Multicell Inverter for Hybrid Electric Vehicle Drives. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 11th International Symposium on Power Electronics for Distributed Generation Systems (PEDG), Dubrovnik, Croatia, 28 September–1 October 2020; pp. 382–385.
[4]
Line 105: "the best way of using the space vector PWM for common-mode leakage current reduction" - this may not be true. Suggesting to modify the statement to be more conservative.
Section 3: why 5-level (but not another number of levels) is employed? In another word, why aiming three-level output voltage (but not the other number of levels) in this study? This should be specified, otherwise, the manuscript looks currently like a lab report, not a research paper.
[5]
Fig.6 - it is advisable to add the definition of A in the graph.
Fig.7 - it is not clear what components are you showing. For the photographs of the real experimental system setup, notation of each component is missing. The authors should specify the key elements of the setup in the image.
[6] There was no mention of the limitations of the study that could stimulate future research interests.
Overall, the manuscript is not ready and lacks many details for a research paper standard.
Author Response
On the first note, changes were made in an abstract.
On the second comment, a transcript was added to the caption to the figure, and the article was corrected according to the accompanying next comment.
Modern sources have been added and the introduction has been revised.
According to the fourth remark, an adjustment was made and the type of inverter was explained.
On the fifth remark, explanations are made in the work.
Also added what the limitations were when performing this study.
Reviewer 3 Report
I have few sugestions:
- topology for each switching state (when you have one figure it is easy to generate others)
- Figure 7 should be marked; eg. I can recognize SM32F4 discovery kit and dif. probe, however this work deserves additional few more labels for transistors and DC link and similar
- Labels on fig. 9 should be the same as the labels (voltages and currents) in new fig which has been described ad 1.
- more references 5-6 with similar topologies. That is not so unique.
This article is OK but please add figures with the same labels on edited fig 9.
Author Response
Figures have been corrected, signatures and literature have been added.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revision is far from satisfactory for a journal publication. The manuscript looks like a lab report or assignment. Many details are missing, in particular the results and discussion part.
Quantitative details/evidence for key performance are missing from the abstract. How much (in numbers) is the experimental performance of reducing common-mode leakage current? Not clear.
The results and figures are mostly in low resolution that is unacceptable and not legible, Figures 6-9.
Missing information for "The experimental model has the following parameters:"
Overall, this work only focuses on problem-solving of a very limited scope/topic within a specific topology, there is a lack of justification for the advancement of this work as compared with the states of the arts. From the limited knowledge contribution and lack of generalization point of view, this work may contribute as a student assignment or lab report, but not a journal paper.
Author Response
Quantitative indicators have been added to the annotation. A section with experimental parameters has been added. The resolution of pictures has been increased.
