Design and Development of a Proficient Converter for Solar Photovoltaic Based Sustainable Power Generating System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
After going through with the manuscript titled “Design and Development of a Proficient Converter for Solar Photovoltaic Based Sustainable Power Generating System”, the following observations are recorded as below: 1) The abstract is concise, precise and well written giving an overall work description of the paper. 2) The introduction section of the paper is relevant and sufficient information about the previous study is presented. 3) The architecture of the proposed DC-DC converter and its advantages over other existing converters is mentioned under section 2 of the paper which clears the contribution of authors in the paper. 4) The system configuration and hardware development has been done by the authors and are reported under section 3 whereas section 4 shows the outcomes of the proposed configuration. 5) The manuscript reports experimental realization of the proposed configuration for the grid integrated solar PV system with a proficient converter which proves its authenticity and applicability in the real time. 6) The authors are suggested to explain Figure 5 and Figure 15 of the paper more clearly. 7) Quality of the figures could be improved for better visualization. 8) The authors are recommended to carefully proof-read the contents of the paper to eliminate grammatical errors. 9) Overall the paper is well written and structured. Interesting study has been done by the authors. Therefore, the content of the manuscript is very well relevant with respect to the scope of the journal.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
The point wise reply is as under:
1) The abstract is concise, precise and well written giving an overall work description of the paper.
Response: The authors are grateful to the reviewer for their valuable observations.
2) The introduction section of the paper is relevant and sufficient information about the previous study is presented.
Response: The authors are grateful to the reviewer for good suggestion.
3) The architecture of the proposed DC-DC converter and its advantages over other existing converters is mentioned under section 2 of the paper which clears the contribution of authors in the paper.
Response: The authors are thankful to reviewer for providing the valuable comments.
4) The system configuration and hardware development has been done by the authors and are reported under section 3 whereas section 4 shows the outcomes of the proposed configuration.
Response: The authors are pleased for the valuable observations made by the reviewer.
5) The manuscript reports experimental realization of the proposed configuration for the grid integrated solar PV system with a proficient converter which proves its authenticity and applicability in the real time.
Response: The authors are grateful to the reviewer for good suggestion.
6) The authors are suggested to explain Figure 5 and Figure 15 of the paper more clearly.
Response: The authors have noted the suggestion of the reviewer and elaborated Figure 5 and Figure 15 of the paper more explicitly.
7) Quality of the figures could be improved for better visualization.
Response: The authors have noted the observation of the reviewer and attempts were made to improve all figures in the paper.
8) The authors are recommended to carefully proof-read the contents of the paper to eliminate grammatical errors.
Response: The paper has been checked thoroughly and the necessary grammatical errors have been addressed.
9) Overall, the paper is well written and structured. Interesting study has been done by the authors. Therefore, the content of the manuscript is very well relevant with respect to the scope of the journal.
Response: The authors are really thankful to the reviewer for their kind support and valuable comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
I have following concerns about the manuscript
- Authors have written solar photovoltaic system in the Abstract. However, it is enough to mention it as photovoltaic system.
- The paper is proposing HESIBC where only diode is replaced with IGBT. Is it enough contribution?
- The short form PEC is used once only in paper. Hence, you can simply write its full form.
- The paper require English recheck as it has many grammatical mistakes. Like this sentence in the introduction “The basic characteristics of any power electronics could not be change but the 39 different combination of components makes an efficient configuration.”
- It would be better if you mention paper number only instead of writing authors. If you want to write author name then please write it properly. Like “Forouzesh, Siwakoti, Gorji., Blaabjerg and Lehman in [13] has re-52 ported comprehensive reviews of DC-DC converters topologies based on five major 53 drives and accordingly classified their area of applications.”
- For this sentence “DC-AC converter or in-57 verter topology is also the key factor for solar photovoltaic system. The paper [18] dis-58 cusses the review of the various inverter topologies or single-phase system. Specific 59 investigations on inverter topologies were also been done by many researchers. Few of 60 them include multilevel inverter topology [19], transformer less type inverter topology 61 [20], enhanced z-source [21] and online variable topology [22]. Extra reference is suggested given as
[Ref1] Resonance damping for an LCL filter type grid-connected inverter with active disturbance rejection control under grid impedance uncertainty. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2019, 109, 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2019.02.004
- The quality of figures needs to improved.
- Did you consider grid impedance with the proposed technique? Generally, grid impedance is unavoidable.
- Additionally, authors are also requested to add most recent papers from 2020 to support novelty of the idea.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
The point wise reply of the concern made by the reviewer is as under:
1). Authors have written solar photovoltaic system in the Abstract. However, it is enough to mention it as photovoltaic system.
Response: The authors have noted the observation of the reviewer and successfully replaced solar photovoltaic system with photovoltaic system in the abstract of the paper.
2). The paper is proposing HESIBC where only diode is replaced with IGBT. Is it enough contribution?
Response: The authors proposed the HESIBC based boost converter which can be practically implemented and is able to cater the real time environmental conditions. Besides the facts that the uniqueness of the paper lies in the boost converter configuration, the paper proposed the grid integrated model developed in the laboratory in the cost-effective manner. With the implementation of other soft computing techniques, the same model can be utilised in different applications with diverse degree of effectiveness.
3). The short form PEC is used once only in paper. Hence, you can simply write its full form.
Response: The authors acknowledged the suggestion and accordingly modified in the paper.
4). The paper require English recheck as it has many grammatical mistakes. Like this sentence in the introduction “The basic characteristics of any power electronics could not be change but the 39 different combination of components makes an efficient configuration.”
Response: The authors acknowledged the suggestion and made grammatical correction wherever required including above sentence in the paper.
5). It would be better if you mention paper number only instead of writing authors. If you want to write author name then please write it properly. Like “Forouzesh, Siwakoti, Gorji., Blaabjerg and Lehman in [13] has reported comprehensive reviews of DC-DC converters topologies based on five major drives and accordingly classified their area of applications.”
Response: The authors acknowledged this good suggestion of the reviewer and necessary modifications has been done in the paper.
6). For this sentence “DC-AC converter or inverter topology is also the key factor for solar photovoltaic system. The paper [18] discusses the review of the various inverter topologies or single-phase system. Specific investigations on inverter topologies were also been done by many researchers. Few of them include multilevel inverter topology [19], transformer less type inverter topology [20], enhanced z-source [21] and online variable topology [22]. Extra reference is suggested given as
[Ref1] Resonance damping for an LCL filter type grid-connected inverter with active disturbance rejection control under grid impedance uncertainty. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2019, 109, 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2019.02.004
Response: The authors are pleased for the valuable observations made by the reviewer. The suggested reference is added in the paper as reference [24].
7). The quality of figures needs to improved.
Response: The authors have noted the observation of the reviewer and attempts were made to improve all figures in the paper.
8). Did you consider grid impedance with the proposed technique? Generally, grid impedance is unavoidable.
Response: The authors have already considered the grid impedance while testing the proposed topology with grid integrated system. It is well known fact that the current control of the inverter gets slower due to presence of grid impedance. This certainly generates more harmonic current. The authors have tested the proposed system under weak grid condition with different grid impedance levels i.e. low as well as high so as to check the stability of the system under abnormal conditions.
9). Additionally, authors are also requested to add most recent papers from 2020 to support novelty of the idea.
Response: The authors are really thankful to the reviewer for their kind support and valuable comments. As per the reviewer suggestion, recent papers mentioned at [28-32] from 2020 have been added in the paper for supporting the novelty of the paper.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been improved considerably. However, i have few more concerns about paper.
- the HESIBC is introduced for the first time in this paper as per authors claims. Can you please mention the changes in Fig. 5 to reflect HESIBC? It is very hard to find the change.
2. The term HESIBC is used in abstract only. However, it is not used in the whole paper elsewhere.
3. I think author must introduce short terms where necessary (used more than 3 to 4 times). Otherwise, author can mention full form only. It will increase readability of the paper.
4. you must avoid The authors in paper or researchers in paper in the introduction section. Instead, you can write in [13].
5. Section 1.1 explain proposed DC-DD boost converter. Hence, please change the name of Fig. 4 accordingly to reflect the contribution of paper. More properly, you can highlight the change in Fig. 4.
6. Please check the direction of current Ia and Ib and Ic in Fig. 5.
7. Authors have proposed converter not the system. Please change the name of Fig. 7.
8. Authors can also avoiding pasting of voltage and current sensing circuit and focus only on the contribution of idea. Therefore, Fig. 9 and 10 can be omitted.
9. Quality of Fig. 14 need to be improved and give name to each sub figure in Fig. 14. Similarly to Fig. 22. Similarly to Fig. 27.
Author Response
The point wise reply is as under:
The paper has been improved considerably. However, I have few more concerns about paper.
Response: The authors are thankful to the editor and reviewer (s) for their valuable suggestions which would definitely help us in improving the quality of the manuscript. All the suggestions given by the reviewer (s) are incorporated in the revised manuscript for the consideration by the esteemed reviewer (s). The authors would be happy to answer the additional queries raised by the esteemed reviewer.
- The HESIBC is introduced for the first time in this paper as per authors claims. Can you please mention the changes in Fig. 5 to reflect HESIBC? It is very hard to find the change.
Response: Figure 5 is an illustrative figure depicting the overall system architecture and control strategies at DC as well as AC side. The power losses and consequently negative effect of the power density and efficiency is the main emphasis of the highly efficient synchronous interleaved boost converter. With this aim, the diodes have been replaced with the IGBT switches which are shown in figure 5 as S1 and S2 respectively. The two parallel phases can be observed which makes it interleaved thereby conducting alternatively with the two coupled inductors Ldc1 and Ldc2. The triangular current mode waveform obtained enhances the efficiency of the converter at low power.
- The term HESIBC is used in abstract only. However, it is not used in the whole paper elsewhere.
Response: The authors are thankful to the esteemed reviewer for providing the valuable suggestions. The term HESIBC is deleted from the abstract.
- I think author must introduce short terms where necessary (used more than 3 to 4 times). Otherwise, author can mention full form only. It will increase readability of the paper.
Response: The suggestion is very well received and noted. Further, the needful is done.
- you must avoid the authors in paper or researchers in paper in the introduction section. Instead, you can write in [13].
Response: The suggestion is very well received and noted. Further, the needful is done. All the references are cited according to the reviewer guidelines.
- Section 1.1 explain proposed DC-DC boost converter. Hence, please change the name of Fig. 4 accordingly to reflect the contribution of paper. More properly, you can highlight the change in Fig. 4.
Response: Thanks for pointing out the modifications. The needful is done.
- Please check the direction of current Ia and Ib and Ic in Fig. 5.
Response: The authors are thankful for the kind observation. The directions of the grid current in three phases have been checked and corrected accordingly in the revised manuscript.
- Authors have proposed converter not the system. Please change the name of Fig. 7.
Response: The needful is done in the revised manuscript.
- Authors can also avoid pasting of voltage and current sensing circuit and focus only on the contribution of idea. Therefore, Fig. 9 and 10 can be omitted.
Response: The suggestion has been incorporated in the revised manuscript.
- Quality of Fig. 14 need to be improved and give name to each sub figure in Fig. 14. Similarly, to Fig. 22. Similarly, to Fig. 27.
Response: The quality of the aforesaid mentioned figures has been improved significantly in the revised manuscript and names has been assigned to each sub figures as per the suggestion of the esteem reviewer.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
the paper has been revised considerably. However, quality of remaining figures is very poor which decreases the readability of paper. Before this paper to be published, i believe quality of figures must be improved.
Good luck
Author Response
The authors are thankful to the reviewer (s) for their valuable suggestions which would definitely help us in improving the quality of the manuscript. It will now definitely increase the readability and more understandable to the readers.
Thanks for your kind cooperation and support in reviewing the manuscript.
