Improved Model Predictive Current Control of Single-Phase Five-Level PWM Rectifier

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents the research on using a single-phase five-level rectifier to improve the traditional model predictive current control algorithm for a fixed switching frequency.

The article overall is well structured and prepared, and the results are well explained and discussed. It’s recommended to be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your great efforts in our manuscript. We also appreciate the referees for their valuable suggestions and questions. We are very sorry for our poor English. The language style in this article has been improved. Some spelling errors have also been corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper looks sound and requires some revisions such as:

Outlines of the paper should be written in the last paragraph of introduction section.

The motivation should be explained more clearly in the introduction.

All references must be revised. Issue numbers and volume numbers are missed from most of references.

All references must be with the same format There is no analysis of the extracted results and no discussion. The authors should add more analysis and discussions for the results. Remove numbers from conclusion. Write it as one paragraph.  Add future directions to conclusion section

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

At first, the reviewer would like to appreciate the attempts for the research work. 

There are some points that should be covered.

1- The English of the paper needs a comprehensive revision. For instance, the sentence of "A traditional finite control-set model predictive current control (FCS-MPC) algorithm." conveys no message and is so confusing for the reader.

2- There some statements in the introduction that are mentioned with no reference. For instance, it is mentioned that FSCS-MPC is a robust method. The reviewer does not see any proof for this claim.

In the meanwhile, there are some references with a very short description. The reviewer believes the introduction needs more investigation and a more authentic background is required. 

3- The dead-beat control and space vector modulation bring a higher switching frequency and complexity to the system.

in the abstract is claimed: " A traditional single vector FCS-MPC algorithm is improved to overcome the problems of a varying switching frequency, the large amount of time needed for calculation, and the inaccurate setpoint of current loop tracking.
please, describe the problem or propose a solution. 

moreover, these methods are addressed in many research works. could you please specify the novelty of the paper.  

As it is seen in the results, the harmonics of the currents are significantly reduced as well as the dynamic of the response. This significance of the method is not clarified in the paper. The reviewer believes it should be mentioned in the abstract.

4- could you please mention how you define the weight coefficients of the cost function.

5- Could you please, bring results to prove the fixed switching frequency?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper presents an improved MPC structure of 5 level converter. 

1) the contribution of this paper is not clear. MPC is presented in the literature, and some works improve the switching statute (fixed switching MPC), some works improve the calculation time. what is the main novelty of this work?

2) it is not good to compare the results with traditional MPC, you should compare the results with an improved model of MPC presented in the literature. for example, in a paper for application of high bandwidth secondary control of microgrid, another term is added to the cost function of MPC which improved the THD and harmonics.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewer wants to appreciate the great revision of the paper and the responses to the questions. 

The current paper looks well written and worth publishing.

Best,

Reviewer 4 Report

This manuscript improved in this round.