Single Phase Induction Motor Driver for Water Pumping Powered by Photovoltaic System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents the design and implementation of a standalone photovoltaic (PV)-powered single-phase induction motor (IM) driver for water pumping applications.

 

Con points:

 

The introduction and literature review sections lack a critical comparison with existing works.

 

The paper relies entirely on MATLAB/Simulink simulations, which, while useful, do not demonstrate real-world feasibility.

 

Provide numerical efficiency comparisons (e.g., how the MPPT implementation improves energy conversion efficiency).

Author Response

Review 1:

The authors thanks to do reviewers valuable comments and we try to response all of the reviewer comments as below and revised on manuscript as shown different colour;

Q1: The introduction and literature review sections lack a critical comparison with existing works.

A1: The introduction part and literature review parts extended with a critical comparison and explanation.

Q1: The paper relies entirely on MATLAB/Simulink simulations, which, while useful, do not demonstrate real-world feasibility.

A1: The simulation results are based on a master thesis and not possible to verify them in real results in this step. But the simulation results are given in comparable form to verify the idea and supported with some numerical results.

Q1: Provide numerical efficiency comparisons (e.g., how the MPPT implementation improves energy conversion efficiency).

A1: The authors thanks to do reviewers for this useful comment and try to attach some useful numerical results repeating the simulation results. The results are attached at the last part of manuscript as a section a tables. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Single Phase IM Driver for Water Pumping Powered by Photovoltaic System

Review

This paper presents the system of a single-phase photovoltaic system that powers a single-phase induction motor and drives a centrifugal water pump. A DC-DC boost converter and a buck-boost controller uses the maximum power point tracking (MPPT) technique to extract the solar power from the photovoltaic (PV) array. Using a single-phase inverter, the DC voltage is converted to AC voltage and supplies the single-phase induction motor. The drive system employs scalar motor control up to the speed required to operate the centrifugal water pump. The methodology aims to achieve optimal performance. All operation is simulated in Matlab/Simulink.

The topic of the paper is interesting.

This research is important. It contains analysis of the system configuration and of the power units, simulation of the control system, and results from simulation.

However, some suggestions for improving the content and accuracy are below:

1. The novelty of this work, as resulted from the literature analysis, must be more realistically presented.
2. The scalar control method V/f of induction motors is not new. The state of the art should be enriched including more publication related to the scalar control by implementing the V/f method. Suggested publications which could be consulted are doi 10.1016/S0924-4247(03)00191-2,  10.1109/TEC.2003.822303, and there are many other.
3. The mentioned in the Abstract optimization of performance is unclear: this part must be presented with details.
4. Experimental tests, measurements and results could be incorporated into the work and would offer greater interest.
5. In the section Conclusions, a comparison of performance between single-phase and three-phase induction motors is mentioned, but this is presented very briefly and is not proven by previous results of previous sections. Such a comparison between single-phase and three-phase induction motors used in the same water pump application should be analyzed and presented in a separate section entitled Discussion.
6. A careful editing of the technical English language is necessary.

Author Response

Review 2:

Q1: The novelty of this work, as resulted from the literature analysis, must be more realistically presented.

A1: The novelty and results are try to present more realist and the revisions are shown with different colour on manuscript

Q2: The scalar control method V/f of induction motors is not new. The state of the art should be enriched including more publication related to the scalar control by implementing the V/f method. Suggested publications which could be consulted are doi 10.1016/S0924-4247(03)00191-2, 10.1109/TEC.2003.822303, and there are many other.

A2: The suggested publications and more are attached in reference list from ref 30 to 38 and analysed more detailed in manuscript.

Q3: The mentioned in the Abstract optimization of performance is unclear: this part must be presented with details.

A3: The mismatch in abstract is corrected. The performance analyses given at the end of manuscript.  

Q4: Experimental tests, measurements and results could be incorporated into the work and would offer greater interest.

A4: The simulation results are based on a master thesis of our students and not possible to verify them in real results in this step. But the simulation results are given in comparable form to verify the idea and supported with some numerical results.

Q4: In the section Conclusions, a comparison of performance between single-phase and three-phase induction motors is mentioned, but this is presented very briefly and is not proven by previous results of previous sections. Such a comparison between single-phase and three-phase induction motors used in the same water pump application should be analyzed and presented in a separate section entitled Discussion.

A4: The sentence in conclusion is corrected as below to prevent the mismatch;

This work has showed that the single phase induction motor has sufficient performance to run the water pump.

Q5: A careful editing of the technical English language is necessary.

A5: The technical English is editing and will send the related department of the journal.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper has not been written carefully and lacks clarity in its contributions. The following issues need to be addressed or clarified:

1. The paper shows almost no innovation and appears to be a compilation of existing open-source models. Compared to existing methods and their improvements, where is the novelty? Please clearly state this in the introduction
2. Why are the images in Figure 3 unclear? Were they self-drawn or cited from other papers? This needs to be explicitly explained
3. Is it MPPT or MPTT? This needs to be clarified
4. Also, in Figure 5, the three images are pieced together and their styles are inconsistent. The same applies to Figure 7.
5. The paper lacks comparison with traditional methods, and is missing an overall control block diagram and comparative block diagrams with traditional methods
6. Could physical experiments be conducted for verification? Or hardware-in-the-loop testing?
7. In Figures 13 and 14, the battery voltage and current are still unstable. How can the method's effectiveness be evaluated?
8. The paper's overall style is inconsistent, and the text size and annotations in the result figures are also inconsistent. Based on the above points, the reviewer has doubts about the paper's originality

Comments on the Quality of English Language

must be improved

Author Response

Review 3:

General Commend: This paper has not been written carefully and lacks clarity in its contributions. The following issues need to be addressed or clarified:

General Answer: The authors thanks to do reviewers valuable comments and we try to response all of the reviewer comments as below and shown with different colour on manuscript;

Q1: The paper shows almost no innovation and appears to be a compilation of existing open-source models. Compared to existing methods and their improvements, where is the novelty? Please clearly state this in the introduction

A1: The novelty and comments of the reviewer explained in introduction part more detailed.

Q2: Why are the images in Figure 3 unclear? Were they self-drawn or cited from other papers? This needs to be explicitly explained

A2: The figure 3 is replotted and our self-drives attached n Figure 3.

Q3: Is it MPPT or MPTT? This needs to be clarified.

A3. It is corrected as an MPPT.

Q4: Also, in Figure 5, the three images are pieced together and their styles are inconsistent. The same applies to Figure 7.

A4: The figure 5 and figure 7 replotted and the figures quality increased.

Q5: The paper lacks comparison with traditional methods, and is missing an overall control block diagram and comparative block diagrams with traditional methods

A5: The comparison with traditional method are given in introduction. Figure 1, 2, 8 the control blocks diagram model of designed system. 

Q6: Could physical experiments be conducted for verification? Or hardware-in-the-loop testing?

A6: It could not possible with this limited time and the results based on the student’s master thesis.

Q7: In Figures 13 and 14, the battery voltage and current are still unstable. How can the method's effectiveness be evaluated?

A7: It is explained in the text before figures and shown with different colour.

Q8: The paper's overall style is inconsistent, and the text size and annotations in the result figures are also inconsistent. Based on the above points, the reviewer has doubts about the paper's originality.

A8: All the manuscript includes original results and derived from the master student thesis. All the figures replotted as an original for copyright problems.  The results also extended with numerical results.

Q9: Comments on the Quality of English Language: must be improved

A9: The manuscript English checked again by a grammar software.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, all the comments are addressed. However, there are still several points:

The justification for the selection of a bidirectional buck-boost converter needs to be strengthened, particularly in comparison to other DC-DC conversion topologies.

While the conclusion suggests future work, it should propose more concrete directions, such as hardware implementation, adaptive control strategies, or integration with smart grid systems.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

The authors thanks to do reviewers valuable comments and the authors try to response all of the reviewer comments as below and revised on manuscript as shown different colour in the limited time;  

Q1: Overall, all the comments are addressed. However, there are still several points:

The justification for the selection of a bidirectional buck-boost converter needs to be strengthened, particularly in comparison to other DC-DC conversion topologies.

A1: The justification for the selection of a bidirectional buck-boost converter strengthened in related parts. Also explained why used bidirectional converter instead of other DC-DC converter topologies.

Q2: While the conclusion suggests future work, it should propose more concrete directions, such as hardware implementation, adaptive control strategies, or integration with smart grid systems.

A2: In the conclusion part proposed more concrete directions proposed by reviewers and shown with different colours.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript can advance for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Q1: The revised manuscript can advance for publication.

A1: The authors thanks to do reviewer valuable comment and the authors try to response reviewer comment in the limited time and detailed revisions on manuscript shown with different colour and can be seen in the other reviewer’s comments; 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper has significant flaws. The voltage is not stable, and the response section is not carefully written, failing to address the problem at all. I suggest rejecting the submission.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

can be improved

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

Q1: This paper has significant flaws. The voltage is not stable, and the response section is not carefully written, failing to address the problem at all. I suggest rejecting the submission. 

A2: The authors thanks to do reviewer valuable comment and the authors try to response reviewer comment in the limited time.

The authors not understand fully what mentioned about the voltage stabilization? If mentioned battery voltage it is not constant, because the battery voltage increases depend on SOC of battery but the variations are very small numerically. If mentioned the PV input voltage it is expected so related the used switching controller and nonlinear PV source voltage. If mentioned the ripples in Figure 13, 14, 15 with time, this is related variable motor speed as seen in Figure 15 first graph. In the 3. second and 6. second the motor speed is changing automatically as adjusted. Although occurred some small ripples in voltage in this time, it catches the references in a short response time and the ripples go to nearly zero. The authors want to show with this variation to verify in every conditions the voltage is stable. This are explained in figure captions and related paragraphs.

The response of previous comments is rewritten carefully as below: 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The photovoltaic output power exceeds the rated value, the wind power control effect is poor, and how to analyze the quality of voltage and current waveforms - these issues still exist, but there has been overall improvement, if the journal editors have no objections