Power Optimization of Partially Shaded PV System Using Interleaved Boost Converter-Based Fuzzy Logic Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article implements photovoltaic MPPT under multiple converters by using fuzzy logic, which improves the efficiency of photovoltaic power generation. The experimental results illustrate the effectiveness of the algorithm. Here some suggestions are given for improvements:

1. The structure of the article should be provided in the introduction. In addition, the current research status needs to be further analyzed to highlight the significance and contribution of this research.
2. Explanations need to be provided for the variables in the equations.
3. More explanations are needed for Figure 1.
4. What are the advantages of the topologies in Figures 1 and 3?
5. What are the inputs and outputs of fuzzy logic selected based on? What are the design principles of fuzzy rules? Fuzzy rules need to be provided along with explanations.
6. VSC and its control, as part of the PV systems, should also be briefly introduced, and some of the latest related references can be added, such as fixed-time sliding mode control for NPC converters with improved disturbance rejection performance, finite-time sliding mode control for NPC converters with enhanced disturbance compensation, etc.
7. Magnified images of the dynamic response should be provided for the simulation results. In addition, the output characteristics on the AC side are largely influenced by the inverter, and some appropriate explanations should be provided, such as the topology type selected in the simulation and the control method.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your kind cooperation, and thank you so much for your comments, recommendations, and suggestions that contribute to supporting the article. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have the following comments:

1. The abbreviation “CBCs” is introduced in line 66 without prior explanation. Please define the abbreviation upon its first occurrence to maintain clarity.
2. The manuscript requires a comprehensive review to enhance its technical quality.
3. The contributions of the paper are not clearly defined. Specifically, the differences between the proposed fuzzy logic MPPT method and existing approaches are unclear. Please provide a clear and concise statement of the novelty and key contributions in the introduction section.
4. In Section 2.1, Modeling of Class and Interleaved Boost Converter, the equations do not follow the required MDPI formatting style. Additionally, the converter topology should be illustrated with a clearly labeled figure.
5. In Table 1, the selection criteria for the converter parameters are not explained. Please clarify how these values were chosen.
6. Figures 1 to 6 are not clear (low quality).
7. To validate the effectiveness of the proposed method, the results should be compared with those obtained using other MPPT techniques.
8. In the partial shading test (Section 3.1.2), the power, voltage, and current of each individual PV module should be shown. Additionally, the results should be compared with those of other methods. The duty cycle should also be plotted. 
9. The organization of the manuscript needs improvement. The authors first discussed the performance of their proposed MPPT under constant and partial shading, and then they displayed the performance of the converter under the same test condition in the next section. You should rearrange your discussion so that you first test the entire system under constant radiation, providing a complete discussion of both the PV module results and the converter results before moving on to the other test conditions.
10. The proposed MPPT method should also be tested under dynamic irradiance profiles, including positive and negative ramps, to simulate real-world conditions such as sunrise and sunset transitions.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your kind cooperation, and thank you so much for your comments, recommendations, and suggestions that contribute to supporting the article. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No more comments

Author Response

Thank you so much.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your response

1. The contribution is still not clear. If you just search for the interleaved boost converter-based partial shading MPPT, you will find many papers.
2. The equations do not follow the MDPI format (please review the MDPI Word template).
3. Regarding the comparison comment. The comparison table is good, but you should add simulation results of another method (e.g., P&O) and compare it with your results.
4. How did you plot Figure 9 in the revised paper? (My comment was to add the duty cycle result for each case.) That is, you plotted voltage, current, and power at constant radiation. Please add the duty cycle changes at the same radiation. This request should be generalized for the other scenarios.
5. The authors still didn’t respond to my comment regarding the dynamic irradiance test (add simulation results under dynamic solar radiation, e.g., change the radiation to check the performance of the proposed technique under sunrise and sunset conditions).

Author Response

Thank you so much for your kind cooperation, and thank you so much for your comments, recommendations, and suggestions that contribute to supporting the article. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept