A Switched Quasi-Z-Source Inverter with Continuous Input Currents

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

First of all congratulations for your work.

Regarding the article there are few corrections that you need to do:

• at the row 73, you wrote gird instead of grid,
• in simulation you said that the duty D=0.25 and in experimental you said that is D=0.75. I think that is a mistake there, and suppose to be 0.25.
• please pay a little bit more attention to the details (put the figure after the first mentioned in the text. Ex. You put the figure of "Photograph of the prototype" in the simulation area...and so on...

Author Response

Thank you very much for the comments. Per your suggestions, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Nice work.

 

 

Comment 1:

Row 171

Authors contributions is missing.

Row 172

Funding is missing.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comment. We have added the authors' contributions and funding information in the revision. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents an interesting subject regarding switched-quasi-Z-source inverter. 

The quality of presentation has a high level, starting with an analysis of converters follows by operation principle of the proposed equipment ,simulation and experimental tests. 

Figure 2 may be completed with the symbols of inductors, capacitors and so on.

Author Response

Many thanks for the review of our manuscript. We have accordingly added the symbols of inductors, diodes, and capacitors in figures. 

Reviewer 4 Report

1. In 2nd line of Abstract, generally has written as "can boost and regulate"-It is required to mention output variables (boosting output voltage?)
2. In 6th line of Abstract, ''high boosting capability''-it is required to mention clearly which variable is going to boost (voltage?)
3. The author states that the proposed qZSI offers improved boost capability, less voltage stresses. However, as compared to  SBi and qSBI that the proposed qZSI converter design needs more capacitors, Inductors (passive elements) and diodes, this how it is going to be feasible (terms of cost and element losses) for this proposed type of converter
4. Need to write abbreviations for variables and elements mentioned in the Table 1
5. missing abbreviations for variables used in the equations 1 and 2
6. Figure-13, experimental results, scaling in X-axis and y-axis are missing
7. It is better to provide one tabular column, with comparison results between simulation and experimental analysis, so that it is more clear to understand for the readers
8. Conclusion part should be written more clear and required further explanation about outcome results and significance.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the comments. We fully considered the suggestions and then made the revision accordingly. A point-by-point reply is provided in the following. 

1. Thank you for the comment. It has been corrected. 
2. Many thanks. Those have been revised in the revision. 
3. Thank you for the comment. The basic SBI and qSBI have the limitations that the boost capability is very limited, as shown in Fig. 7. Therefore, the SBI and qSBI are not suitable for high voltage-gain applications. If the SBI and qSBI are cascaded for high voltage-gain applications, the corresponding cost and element losses will be also increased. Moreover, the switch stress of the SBI and qSBI is much higher than the proposed topology (in Fig. 8(a)), the rating of the power switch is higher, leading to a higher cost. Considering the above, the proposed converter has superior performance compared with the SBI and qSBI. We have revised the texts to highlight the difference in the revision. 
4. We have added more texts to make Table 1 clearer. 
5. Thanks a lot for the comment. The explanations of the variables in Eqs. 1 and 2 are added in the revision (Page 3)
6. Many thanks for pointing out this. In the revision (Fig. 12), the scaling/units are added. 
7. Thanks a lot for the suggestion. In the revision, we further discussed the results in order to compare the results. 
8. Thank you again for the review. In the revision, we added more discussions in the conclusion to summarize the superiority of the proposed solution.