Roach Infestation Optimization MPPT Algorithm for Solar Photovoltaic System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

An updated and complete literature review should be conducted and appear as part of the introduction before the publication

Author Response

The authors are sincerely thankful to the reviewer for acknowledging the proposed research work. Moreover, the authors are appreciated the time and efforts that you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript as well as for your valuable comments and suggestions. According to the comments of the reviewer, we have made the revision to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Comments to the Author:

Comment-1:  An updated and complete literature review should be conducted and appear as part of the introduction before the publication.

Response-1:   The authors are extremely thankful to the reviewer for his/her valuable suggestion. The Introduction is updated in the Introduction Section -1, Page nos. 1-4, in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

"Roach Infestation Optimization MPPT Algorithm for Solar Photovoltaic System"

1. The authors must state clearly the novelty of this research.
2. The abstract should briefly display the results of the research.
3. It is better to make a more comprehensive literature review in the form of a table (matrix) so that the reader is more confident with the contribution of this research.
4. How do the authors validate the solar PV system models that have been made?
5. The quality of Figure 3 is very poor, please replace it with a high resolution image.
6. How do the authors validate the simulink  diagram in Figure 3 that have been built?
7. How do the authors validate the RIO method? As shown in Figure 4: Flowchart of proposed RIO algorithm for MPPT?
8. The authors only compared the RIO method with the PSO. It should also be compared with other methods such as Perturb and observe, hill and climb, and others, so as to show the superiority of the proposed method. There should be at least 3 comparison methods.
9. It is advisable to present and describe the sensitivity analysis of the RIO method used.
10. It is advisable to add a description of the statistical analysis of the performance of the RIO method.
11. The conclusions should be supported by the research data so that it is a sharper one.

 

Author Response

The authors would like first to thank the Reviewer for the time and effort dedicated to the review of our paper as well as the very helpful comments and suggestions. The necessary corrections are incorporated in the revised manuscript to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Comments to the Author:

Comment-1:  The authors must state clearly the novelty of this research.

Response-1:   The authors are extremely thankful to the reviewer for this thoughtful point. The main contributions of the proposed research work are highlighted (i.e., marked by yellow color) in the Introduction, Page nos. 4, to reflect the key ideas of this manuscript. Moreover, in Section-4 (Results and Discussion, Page nos. 8-15) different case studies are presented to examine the effectiveness of the proposed RIO algorithm in terms of contributing a fast dynamic response, higher tracking accuracy to get the GMPP, and having more robustness against the presence of the system uncertainties and load variations.

 

Comment-2:  The abstract should briefly display the results of the research.

Response-2:   The Abstract Section (Page no. 1) is modified in the revised manuscript as per suggestion.

 

 

 

Comment-3:  It is better to make a more comprehensive literature review in the form of a table (matrix) so that the reader is more confident with the contribution of this research.

Response-3:   The authors are extremely thankful to the reviewer for his/her valuable suggestion. The Introduction (Section-1, Page nos. 1-4) is modified with compressive literature in the revised manuscript.

 

 

Comment-4:  How do the authors validate the solar PV system models that have been made?

Response-4:   The modeling of the studied PV system has been done in MATLAB/Simulink (R2020b) platform to validate the proposed work. The parameters of the PV module are taken from the solar panel MSX60 solar module in a standard test system (STC) of temperature 25°C [43].

[43] Walker, G., Evaluating MPPT converter topologies using a Matlab PV model. Australian Journal of Electrical & Electronics Engineering, 2001, 21(1), pp. 49-56.

 

Comment-5:  The quality of Figure 3 is very poor, please replace it with a high-resolution image.

Response-5:   As suggested by the esteemed reviewer, the figure is modified in the revised manuscript (Figure-4, Page no. 5).

 

Comment-6:  How do the authors validate the simulink diagram in Figure 3 that have been built?

Response-6:   In this study, the Solarex MSX60, a typical 60W PV module [43] is selected for modeling the PV system to validate the Simulink diagram in Figure 4. The same is mentioned in the revised manuscript (Section-2, Page no. 6).

[43] Walker, G., Evaluating MPPT converter topologies using a Matlab PV model. Australian Journal of Electrical & Electronics Engineering, 2001, 21(1), pp. 49-56.

 

Comment-7:  How do the authors validate the RIO method? As shown in Figure 4: Flowchart of proposed RIO algorithm for MPPT?

Response-7:   First, the search performance (i.e., faster convergence and getting the optimal solution) of the RIO algorithm is tested on different unconstrained benchmark functions. It is found that the RIO algorithm has better search performance as compared to PSO as presented in Section 4.2, Page no. 10, in the revised manuscript. Then the efficacy of the RIO algorithm is tested on MPPT of the PV system (Figure 4). Figure 5 represents the flowchart of the proposed RIO algorithm for MPPT. The results obtained in the RIO-based MPPT technique are found satisfactory performance than PSO, which is given in Section-4 (i.e., Results and Discussion).

 

Comment-8:  The authors only compared the RIO method with the PSO. It should also be compared with other methods such as Perturb and observe, hill and climb, and others, so as to show the superiority of the proposed method. There should be at least 3 comparison methods.

Response-8:   As per suggestion, a detailed comparison of RIO, PSO, P&O and incremental conductance (IC)-based MPPT schemes have been provided in Section-4.4, Page nos. 12-13, in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment-9:  It is advisable to present and describe the sensitivity analysis of the RIO method used.

Response-9:   The authors are extremely thankful to the reviewer for his/her valuable suggestion. In order to validate the effectiveness (i.e., robustness/sensitivity) of the RIO-based MPPT scheme, the presence of the system uncertainties/noise and variation of load are considered in Section 4.5, Page no. 14, in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment-10:             It is advisable to add a description of the statistical analysis of the performance of the RIO method.

Response-10: As suggested by the respected reviewer, all mentioned concerns are established in the revised manuscript for improving the quality. A detailed statistical analysis of the performance of the RIO method are given in Tables 6-8, in the revised manuscript. Moreover, the authors have rewritten the manuscript with more clarity to improve the quality and readability of the paper/text.

Comment-11:            The conclusions should be supported by the research data so that it is a sharper one.

Response-11: As suggested by the respected reviewer, the Conclusion (Page no. 15) is modified in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

1. There are many grammatical mistakes throughout the manuscript. It is fading the purpose of the article and the authors contributions. It should be written properly in a meaningful English. Pay a special attention to Line 251-253 in the conclusions section. It has not been written in a meaningful English. For this reason, the authors are advised to consult some native English speaker, and get their manuscript proofread carefully and thoroughly.
2. The authors have considered both uniform shading and partial shading, which is a very good thing. However, the temperature variation range is very small, that is, 20 C to 25 C. In this regard, the authors are advised to include some more results while considering higher temperatures, such as around 50 C.
3. In Figure 7, the caption of the figure and the y-label of the figure are matchless. Please, correct it?
4. In Table 4, there is a wrong/abnormal value (i.e., 10000 written under Module-1 for Pattern-1). Please, correct it.
5. A PV-module is rated at STC (Standard Test Conditions, i.e., 25 C, 1000 W/m^2) for its maximum power output. In your case, Table 1 suggests the maximum power output for 4S to be 4*59.85= (around) 240 W. Now, looking at Figure 6, it shows a power output of around 250 W for Pattern-5 (i.e., 20 C and 1000 W/m^2, which is not at STC). Is it possible to have a power output more than the maximum rated power output (i.e., 240 W=4x59.85 at STC) at conditions other than STC? Isn’t is wrong?
6. Please, write the name of the PV module in Table 1, which you have selected for simulation.
7. In order to better represent the superior performance of the proposed strategy (RIO) to PSO, the authors are advised to give the following four performance indices for both RIO and PSO:

(a). ISE (Integral of Squared Error) (b). ITSE (Integral of Time-Squared Error)  (c). IAE (Integral of Absolute Error), and (d) ITAE (Integral of Time-Absolute Error)

For performance indices, the authors are advised to refer to the following article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2015.03.004

8. The article reports the performance validation of the proposed RIO algorithm under constant load only. The authors must consider the load variation with supporting results.
9. The robustness of the proposed RIO algorithm to parametric uncertainties has not been validated. For this purpose, the authors are advised to consider the parametric uncertainties and test the robustness of the proposed MPPT algorithm. The authors may refer to the following article for considering parametric uncertainties: https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9091543

Author Response

Thank you so very much for your valuable insight and constructive comments. We sincerely appreciate your input and are grateful for the time and insight you have dedicated to our manuscript. All mentioned concerns are incorporated in the revised manuscript. We have written the manuscript properly for improving the readability and a sincere effort has been made to reorganize the manuscript in the best possible way.

Comments to the Author:

Comment-1:  There are many grammatical mistakes throughout the manuscript. It is fading the purpose of the article and the authors contributions. It should be written properly in a meaningful English. Pay a special attention to Line 251-253 in the conclusions section. It has not been written in a meaningful English. For this reason, the authors are advised to consult some native English speaker, and get their manuscript proofread carefully and thoroughly.

Response-1: The authors are extremely thankful to the reviewer for pointing out the typo and English mistakes. We apologize for the typos and English/sentence misalignment errors. The authors have consulted a native English speaker and rewritten the manuscript with more clarity to improve the quality and readability of the paper/text.

 

Comment-2:  The authors have considered both uniform shading and partial shading, which is a very good thing. However, the temperature variation range is very small, that is, 20⁰C to 25⁰C. In this regard, the authors are advised to include some more results while considering higher temperatures, such as around 50⁰C.

Response-2: The authors are extremely thankful to the reviewer for this thoughtful point. As per suggestion, a shading pattern at 50⁰C (i.e., Pattern-7) is taken in the Simulations and Results (i.e., Section-4), in the revised manuscript.

 

 

 

Comment-3:  In Figure 7, the caption of the figure and the y-label of the figure are matchless. Please, correct it?

Response-3:   We apologize for the typo error. The above typo mistake and other errors have been rectified in the revised manuscript.

 

 

Comment-4:  In Table 4, there is a wrong/abnormal value (i.e., 1000 written under Module-1 for Pattern-1). Please, correct it.

Response-4:   The authors are extremely thankful to the reviewer for pointing out the above-mentioned typo mistake. The above mistake is rectified in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment-5:  A PV-module is rated at STC (Standard Test Conditions, i.e., 25⁰C, 1000W/m^2) for its maximum power output. In your case, Table 1 suggests the maximum power output for 4S to be 4*59.85= (around) 240W. Now, looking at Figure 6, it shows a power output of around 250W for Pattern-5 (i.e., 20⁰C and 1000W/m^2, which is not at STC). Is it possible to have a power output more than the maximum rated power output (i.e., 240W=4x59.85 at STC) at conditions other than STC? Isn’t it wrong?

Response-5:   The authors are extremely thankful to the reviewer for pointing out the above-mentioned comments. In this study, the Solarex MSX60, a typical 60W PV module is selected for modeling the PV system [43]. Generally, a PV module performance is rated under standard test conditions (STC) such as solar irradiance of 1000 W/m², the solar spectrum of air mass 1.5 and module temperature at 25°C. Manufacturers of photovoltaic modules typically provide the ratings at only one operating condition (i.e., STC) [44-45]. However, the PV module operates over a large range of environmental conditions such as variations of solar irradiation, temperature, and partial shading, etc., in the field. The suitability of a PV module technology for a particular site depends on five major factors which include the annual solar irradiation distribution, variations in the efficiency of PV module technology with solar irradiation, annual temperature distribution and module temperature coefficient, variations in the solar spectrum distribution, and rate of power degradation of the PV modules with time. Since temperature affects the amount of power we get from a solar system, the electrical efficiency of the PV module depends on ambient temperature, and it reduces when the temperature increases and vice-versa [44-45]. The temperature coefficient implies how much will be the decrement in power output if the PV module temperature varies from STC. It is also true that this temperature coefficient varies from one type of solar cell technology to another [44]. The same is written in the revised manuscript, Section-2, Page no. 6. The reductions in PV module output power when the temperature increases and vice-versa as shown in Figure 7.

           

[43] Walker, G., Evaluating MPPT converter topologies using a Matlab PV model. Australian Journal of Electrical & Electronics Engineering, 2001, 21(1), pp. 49-56.

[44] Dash, P.K., and Gupta, N.C., Effect of Temperature on Power Output from Different Commercially available Photovoltaic Modules. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 2015, 5(1), pp. 148-151.

[45] Hasan, K., et al., Effects of different environmental and operational factors on the PV performance: A comprehensive review. Energy Science & Engineering, 2022, 10(2), pp. 656-675.

 

 

 

Comment-6:  Please, write the name of the PV module in Table 1, which you have selected for simulation.

Response-6:   In this study, the Solarex MSX60, a typical 60W PV module [43] is selected for modeling the PV system to validate the Simulink diagram in Figure 4. The same is mentioned in the revised manuscript (Section-2, Page no. 6).

[43] Walker, G., Evaluating MPPT converter topologies using a Matlab PV model. Australian Journal of Electrical & Electronics Engineering, 2001, 21(1), pp. 49-56.

 

Comment-7:  In order to better represent the superior performance of the proposed strategy (RIO) to PSO, the authors are advised to give the following four performance indices for both RIO and PSO:

(a). ISE (Integral of Squared Error) (b). ITSE (Integral of Time-Squared Error) (c). IAE (Integral of Absolute Error), and (d). ITAE (Integral of Time-Absolute Error)

- For performance indices, the authors are advised to refer to the following article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2015.03.004.

Response-7:   The authors are extremely thankful to the reviewer for his/her valuable suggestion. A case study (Section-4.3, Page nos. 11-12) is presented to examine the superior performance of the proposed strategy (RIO) to PSO for tuning the PI-controller parameters of the PV system (Figure 4) using the ISE, ITSE, IAE and ITAE evaluation criteria.

 

Comment-8:  The article reports the performance validation of the proposed RIO algorithm under constant load only. The authors must consider the load variation with supporting results.

Response-8:   The authors are extremely thankful to the reviewer for his/her valuable suggestion. The load variation case study is introduced in Results (i.e., Section 4.5, Page no. 14) in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment-9:  The robustness of the proposed RIO algorithm to parametric uncertainties has not been validated. For this purpose, the authors are advised to consider the parametric uncertainties and test the robustness of the proposed MPPT algorithm. The authors may refer to the following article for considering parametric uncertainties: https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9091543.

Response-9:   The effectiveness/robustness of the proposed controller is tested in the presence of uncertainty (i.e., noise) (Refer to Figure 4). A case study is presented in Section 4.5, Figure-13, Page 14, in the revised manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revised most of the reviewers' suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have no further question. Thank you.