Unified Modeling and Double-Loop Controller Design of Three-Level Boost Converter
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. This manuscript should explain in detail and evidence of how to resolve the voltage imbalance and the complex control structure of TLB.
2. A puzzling situation was why inductor currents were the DC current changes without charging and discharging operations in Figures 11 and 17.
3. On page 11, please explain why the Kp = 0.05 was selected.
Author Response
Dear,
please refer to the attached file named "Answer to the reviewer 1 comment. doc".
It contains every answer items which is issued.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents a modeling method and controller design method for a three-level BOOST converter . The topic of the paper is interesting, and the logic of the study is rational and the results are presented clearly. The following confusions/additions need further clarification.
1 Line 315：“is shown” should be deleted.
2 A capacitor voltage unbalancing controller is introduced. How to tune the parameter Kp?
3 If possible, the simulation results and analysis with different controller should be shown to highlight the advantages of the proposed method in this paper.
4 The efficiency of the converter is an important index to evaluate the performance of the converter. What about the efficiency of the converter?
Author Response
Dear,
please refer to the attached file named "Answer to the reviewer 2 comment. docx".
It contains every answer items which is issued.
Best regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors presented a small-signal modeling of a three-level boost converter and designed a methodology for a double-loop controller. The paper is well written and the topic is interesting and deserves attention. However, there are many concerns that should be considered.
· Typos and grammatical errors should be corrected throughout the paper.
· The paper is not well formatted as I can see a lot of no-space errors before brackets and brackets of citation. Please be careful. Sometimes this kind of mistake gives an impression of carelessness, which by default might have been done in other aspects of the paper too.
· “Moreover, the TLB converter has a right-half-plane zero and is hence a non-minimum … ”, please remove the word “is”.
· The literature review is insufficient, and the references are old. The authors should add more recent references and highlight the gaps and shortcomings in the literature review to be able to clarify the novelty of their work.
· Also, the main contribution of the paper should be better illustrated and summarized in points.
· More recent citations are required in the Introduction section like, Harmonic characteristics and control strategies of grid-connected photovoltaic inverters under weak grid conditions, Impedance characteristics investigation and oscillation stability analysis for two-stage PV inverter under weak grid condition, An efficient algorithm for atomic decomposition of power quality disturbance signals using convolutional neural network, An optimized parameter design of passivity-based controller for single-phase voltage source inverters, An optimal network constraint-based joint expansion planning model for modern distribution networks with multi-types intermittent RERs.
· Insert the reference citation before all equations in the text.
· Figure 3 should come within subsection 2.1, not before it.
· Section 4 should be entitled “Simulation results”. Also, section 5 should be “Experimental validation”.
· The quality and the resolution of figures must be enhanced. Also, the text inside figures should be enlarged.
· In line 407, it should be “as shown” not “as show”.
· A separate discussion section should be added before the conclusions section to comment on the produced results.
· It is recommended to add a nomenclature table before the Introduction section to define all symbols and abbreviations.
· The authors are required to give suggestions for future work and limitations of the current study in the conclusions section.
Author Response
Dear,
please refer to the attached file named "Answer to the reviewer 3 comment. doc".
It contains every answer items which is issued.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors did not consider most of my comments !!!
Author Response
The recommended files are added in the reference list to follow the reviewer’s comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors considered my comments. Only few comments should be considered before publication:
1- The reference citation of equations should be added in the text.
2- A separate discussions section is required before the conclusions.
Author Response
Please refer to the attached file which includes the answer to the reviewer coment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
