Model-Based Design and Experimental Validation of Control System for a Three-Level Inverter
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Contribution:
In this study, the method of model-based design is introduced into the design of
frequency-voltage double closed-loop control system for the three-level inverter, and a novel development method of control system is proposed. Based on analysis of the MATLAB environment to achieve the model-based design method, the overall design process of the entire system is established, including the development of pulse-width modulation (PWM) control algorithm, voltage control, frequency control, and neutral-point potential-balancing control models. Overally, the manuscript is very well written.
Weakness:
* Literature section should be extended with more papers (update papers) introduction section.
* Simulation/Experimental results in the manuscript must be extended with verbal and numerical.
* The quality of the figures given in the manuscript needs to be improved.
* The authors need to provide additional Discussion section before the Conclusion section. That section should cover depth discussions about the ability of different used method in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and accuracy in solving the issues.
*The conclusion section and/or experimental results section must be improved by integrating more generated results or rather stress more description on the results is necessary.
*There are few editorial and grammatical errors in some parts of the manuscript which can be identified easily by a careful reading. The authors can take help of native English speaker for corrections.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Model-Based Design and Experimental Validation of Control System for Three-Level Inverter” (ID:electronics-1748256). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
- Response to comment:Literature section should be extended with more papers (update papers) introduction section..
Response: We have added this part in the introduction section by update papers.
- Response to comment: Simulation/Experimental results in the manuscript must be extended with verbal and numerical.
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
- Response to comment:The quality of the figures given in the manuscript needs to be improved.
Response: We modified some of the figures. We have tried to make the figures as clear as possible.
- Response to comment: The authors need to provide additional Discussion section before the Conclusion section. That section should cover depth discussions about the ability of different used method in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and accuracy in solving the issues.
Response: We added the discussion.
- Response to comment: The conclusion section and/or experimental results section must be improved by integrating more generated results or rather stress more description on the results is necessary.
Response: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
- Response to comment: There are few editorial and grammatical errors in some parts of the manuscript which can be identified easily by a careful reading. The authors can take help of native English speaker for corrections.
Response: We are very sorry for the careless spelling, and we have browsed through the full text to revise them.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Other changes:
- The font of some variables are adjusted.
- The name of Figure 4 was changed. Some part in Figure 1 were modified correspondingly.
- Figure 8 was deleted and the subsequent serial numbers are arranged in sequence.
- Figure 9 was changed.
- Some literatures were added.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes in revised paper.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours sincerely,
Wenjuan Li , Dingsheng Li and Jingwei Zhang
Corresponding author:
Name: Jingwei Zhang
E-mail:1910100017@stu.hrbust.edu.cn
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The topic of inverters is up-to-date, so the manuscript may be interesting for readers. Unfortunately, the style of presentation the scientific achievements is low.
2. The manuscript should be divided into sections containing: the introduction, literature review, experimental, results, discussion, and conclusion. The sections should be more or less similarly long.
3. The manuscript is more a report of some work than a scientific article. Change the style and content of the text.
4. It is extremely difficult to guess what is your contribution, what is new, and what is already known. Use active voice instead of passive voice – it will allow you to easily separate your work from literature.
5. Use short sentences. Contemporary scientific works use short sentences. How to write see e.g. https://sites.duke.edu/scientificwriting/. Revise all sentences longer than 2 lines.
6. Graphics should be easy to read after printing.
7. Use only graphics which illustrate your contribution to science. The goal of figures is not present how hard have you worked – it is not important to readers.
8. Fig. 4 does not present an algorithm – it is a program.
9. Line 49 – what does Mu mean?
10. What do you want to present to readers shown us in Fig. 8?
11. Sec. 4 is unacceptable. As I have mentioned – Discussions should be much longer and Conclusions be placed in the last part.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Model-Based Design and Experimental Validation of Control System for Three-Level Inverter” (ID:electronics-1748256). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
- Response to comment:The topic of inverters is up-to-date, so the manuscript may be interesting for readers. Unfortunately, the style of presentation the scientific achievements is low.
Response: Thank you very much for your affirmation. We rewrote the title of Section 3, discussion and some parts. We explained the advantages of the proposed method in the discussion.
- Response to comment: The manuscript should be divided into sections containing: the introduction, literature review, experimental, results, discussion, and conclusion. The sections should be more or less similarly long.
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We added the discussion and the part in the introduction section by analyzing and comparing with other literatures.
- Response to comment:Change the style and content of the text.
Response: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
- Response to comment: Use active voice instead of passive voice – it will allow you to easily separate your work from literature.
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
- Response to comment: Use short sentences. Contemporary scientific works use short sentences.
Response: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
- Response to comment:Graphics should be easy to read after printing.
Response: We modified some of the figures. We have tried to make the figures as clear as possible.
- Response to comment:Use only graphics which illustrate your contribution to science.The goal of figures is not present how hard have you worked – it is not important to readers.
Response: We deleted a figure and replaced one to illustrate clearly.
- Response to comment:Fig. 4 does not present an algorithm – it is a program.
Response: We are very sorry for our negligence of the mistake, and we have corrected the word.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
- Response to comment:Line 49 – what does Mu mean?.
Response: Mu is the modulation index. We added the explanation in the text.
- Response to comment:What do you want to present to readers shown us in Fig. 8?
Response: It show us the overall functional verification model in the operation.
- Response to comment:Sec. 4 is unacceptable. As I have mentioned – Discussions should be much longer and Conclusions be placed in the last part.
Response: We rewrote the discussion.
Thank you for your valuable comments.
Other changes:
- The font of some variables are adjusted.
- The name of Figure 4 was changed. Some part in Figure 1 were modified correspondingly.
- Figure 8 was deleted and the subsequent serial numbers are arranged in sequence.
- Figure 9 was changed.
- Some literatures were added.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes in revised paper.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours sincerely,
Wenjuan Li , Dingsheng Li and Jingwei Zhang
Corresponding author:
Name: Jingwei Zhang
E-mail:1910100017@stu.hrbust.edu.cn
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
