Robustness of Model-Predictive and Passivity-Based Control in the Three-Phase DC/AC Converter Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, the robustness of model predictive and passivity based control in the three-phase dc/ac converter application is discussed. Some theoretical analysis, simulation and experimental results are given. The idea is interesting. However, authors still need to address the following concerns

• The author should explain the motivation, theoretical and engineering value of this paper, which should be emphasized in the abstract and conclusion part.
• Structural schematic diagram and other details of the experimental platform are recommended.
• Experimental results and analysis of dynamic response performance are recommended.
• Matched simulation and experimental results is better.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript.

We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers), (b) an updated manuscript with red highlighting indicating changes.

Best regards,

<The authors >

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors proposed a model for predictive and passivity-based control of three-phase DC/AC converter applications. The model presents the possibilities of designing a system with the robustness for unexpected changing the parameters: filter coil inductance and filter capacitor conductance. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the modified MPC and PBC controllers for the different load values are compared in the manuscript. Actually, the contribution of the manuscript is not clear. In the following, there are many comments; I think they are useful to enhance the manuscript.

1. I suggest supporting the abstract section with a few significant numerical results to indicate the superiority of the proposed model.
2. Please, put the abbreviations “MPC” and “PBC” in line 11 inside the parenthesis, not the full name. Also, “SISO” and “MISO” in lines 18-19.
3. The authors used too many references for one piece of information such as references [1-6] in line 19. Please, use one or two references only.
4. Please, revise the section numbers in lines 55-56.
5. Please, revise the caption of Table 1.
6. I advise the authors not to use pronouns such as “we” in lines 104 and 116. Please, use the passive voice in scientific academic writing.
7. Table 2 is missing and it is not cited in the text. Please, check it.
8. Please, revise the caption of Table 3.
9. The authors cited Fig. 2 in the text by “Fig. 2” on page 6, while “Figure 2” on page 7. Please, use a uniform text citation for figures.
10. I think the captions of Fig. 3-5 have to revise in order to describe the content of the figures exactly.
11. The authors should specify the name and values of X- and Y-axes in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7.
12. The discussion section should be extended with more discussing of the proposed models.
13. I suggest comparing the proposed model with other models proposed in the literature.
14. Please, do not cite figures or tables in the conclusion section (such as; Figure 8 in line 215).
15. The manuscript includes a lot of grammar mistakes and typos such as; “predicitive” in line 18, “The examined system is named also …” in lines 87-88, “... damping matrixes [21]” in line 91, “Figure 3, 4 and 5 presents…” in line 169, “The figures presents…” in line 175, “... stabilization …” in lines 177 and 180. Thus, comprehensive proofreading by a native speaker is necessary for the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript.

We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers), (b) an updated manuscript with red highlighting indicating changes.

Best regards,

<The authors >

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf