Investigation on the Work Efficiency of the LC Passive Harmonic Filter Chosen Topologies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A lot of effort has been put into writing the article.

But this article has the following important drawbacks:

Manuscript research sections do not comply with the required structure and guidelines of the journal.

The article is too extensive and more appropriate in the structure of the study.

The article shows too many diagrams, figures, formulas and details.

In most of the figures the font is too small. Also, a lot of formulas are repeated.

Therefore, it is not for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper addresses an important subject, characterized by a study on the working efficiency of the LC passive harmonic filter chosen topologies.

The methodology proposed in the paper consists of the analysis of the passive harmonic filters considering the frequency-domain through their impedance versus frequency characteristics as well as in the time-domain through an electrical system. A comparative study between five different topologies of passive harmonic filters is also addressed.

The general idea of the paper seems to be good. However, this is not a new topic in this field and the novelty of this work is questionable. The conclusions obtained from the laboratory results are quite modest.

The reviewer has doubts about recommending this article for publication as it is. Therefore, it is recommended that the article must be revised. The reviewer explains his concerns in more detail below, asking the author(s) to consider each of his comments/ questions in their responses. Please, consider the following comments/ questions.

1. First of all, many top research papers have been published in this area. The author(s) should highlight and emphasize the main contribution and novelty of this paper clarifying the main difference concerning previous works in this field in the scientific literature.

It would be great if the drawbacks and gaps of literature are clear and, particularly, how the proposed approach aims at filling these gaps. Please, be clearer!

2. Most of the references cited in the article are good, however, the reviewer verified the following: i) about 30% of the references are more than 10 years old; ii) about 42% of the references are conference articles; iii) only 31% of references are articles from research articles.

Is the reviewer’s opinion that the author(s) should consider increasing the number of references of top research articles in future research papers.

3. Why did the author(s) study only one topology (single-tuned filter) in the laboratory and did not consider the other four topologies?

It would be very interesting to check the results of the other topologies and compare them with the MatLab / Simulink simulations.

4. The statement on page 31, "To solve both problems, an additional line reactor can be used between the filter and the electrical grid (e.g. LSS, see Figure 36) ...). Why did the author(s) not solve this situation in practice?

It is reviewer’s opinion, that it would be more productive and would bring more quality to this work if these problems were fixed. In this case, this article is based mostly on simulation work (MatLab / Simulink) and, therefore, is not strongly supported with laboratory results!

5. On page 3, in Table 1, the statement “…harmonic equivalent impedance at the PC when no load is connected”.

Is it “PC” or “PCC”?

6. On page 4, the title “2.1. Sumulation Assumptions”.

Is it “Sumulation” or “Simulation”?

7. On page 5, below Table 2, the statement “…In Figure 6, in can be noticed that after the first-order filter connection…”.

Is it “…in can be noticed…” or “…it can be noticed…”?

8. On page 27, in Figure 38, the statement “…(b) when the filter and land are not connected.”.

Is it “…filter and land …” or “…filter and load …”?

9. On page 28, in Figure 40. Is it possible to improve the quality of these figures? These figures are difficult to read. It is very difficult to see the values on the y-axis, for example.
10. On page 30, in Table 13, the statement “Table 13. Measured grid voltage and current parameters before the single-tuned filter connection”.

Is it “…before…” or “…after…”?

11. On page 31, the statement “…harmonics at the gird side is due to the fact that additional…”.

Is it “…gird…” or “…grid…”?

12. In the conclusion Section, the word “etc” appears twice. Is the reviewer’s opinion that the word “etc” must be avoided as much as possible in research articles. The author(s) must be more objective in their statements.
13. On page 33, the references [54] “Detuned reactors - Schneider Electric” and reference [56] “Capacitor banks - Legrand Export” are structured inappropriately.

Do these references refer to websites or what? Please, be clearer!

14. As a final point, it is recommended to the author(s) to revise the article as there are some grammatical errors and typos in the text of the article. The English of this paper is not standardized enough, some grammar mistakes and expressions need to be revised, very carefully!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has been corrected according to the instructions.

It can be published.