A Novel Approach for Adaptive Partial Sliding Mode Controller Design and Tuning in Non-Minimum Phase Switch-Mode Power Supplies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The author presented systematic approach is proposed for a partial sliding mode controller (SMC (design and tuning in non-minimum phase switch mode power supplies (SMPS), effects the developed controller was robust against model changes in both continuous and discontinuous operations. It also fits perfectly into the scope of journal Electronics.
The paper is interesting, and I have no fundamental objection to its contents.
In my opinion, the article can be adopted after minor changes.
Strengths
The strength of this paper is the very up-to-date list of cited literature sources, as 80% are from the last 4 years.
Noticed errors/remarks.
· Despite a broad analysis of the state of the issue, the paper lacked a brief summary of this analysis and a clear presentation of the research gap.
· Line 303: Jacobian matrix arrays? Jacobian matrix is not enough???
· The presented units of reference voltage and current are presented infrequent format.
· Conclusions in the form of a dozen lines of text in a 20-page paper seem extremely poor. Expanding them would certainly increase the value of the paper.
· The format of the literature list deviates from journal templates.
Small errors
Line 82: No comma after the word example
Line 122: As: what???
Line 183: Is: Fig.2(a); should be Fig. 2(a). Applies to the entire paper.
Line 262. Is: the ??â„Ž parameter. Should be i-th?
Equations 10, 13, 19: Bad formatting of punctuation marks.
Pages 12/13, 13/14. Bad pagination
Figures 6, 7, 8. Vaguely described vertical axis.
Line 452. What is 18?
Author Response
Reviewer #1
The author presented systematic approach is proposed for a partial sliding mode controller (SMC) design and tuning in non-minimum phase switch mode power supplies (SMPS), effects the developed controller was robust against model changes in both continuous and discontinuous operations. It also fits perfectly into the scope of journal Electronics.
The paper is interesting, and I have no fundamental objection to its contents.
In my opinion, the article can be adopted after minor changes.
Strengths
The strength of this paper is the very up-to-date list of cited literature sources, as 80% are from the last 4 years.
Noticed errors/remarks.
- Despite a broad analysis of the state of the issue, the paper lacked a brief summary of this analysis and a clear presentation of the research gap.
Answer- Many thanks for your comment. Regarding the research gap and the drawback of equivalent sliding mode controllers, the following point are highlighted in the revised manuscript.
“The drawbacks of equivalent-based SMC can be summarised as:
- The control rule includes a couple of gains. Hence, if the SMC is tunned by trial and error, its superior performance cannot be guaranteed in a wide range of changes in terms of closed-loop stability and robustness.
- If the dynamics of all state variables are used in the sliding surface, the final control law can be a complex function in SMPS. For this reason, the practical implementation of the SMC isn’t straightforward. Moreover, SMC combination with adaptive controllers (although it improves the controller’s stability against uncertainties) requires more time-consuming real-time calculations. ”
- Line 303: Jacobian matrix arrays? Jacobian matrixis not enough???
Answer - Yes- The revised manuscript is revised based on the valuable comment of the respected reviewer.
- The presented units of reference voltage and current are presented infrequent format.
Answer - Many thanks for your comment. The units are addressed properly in the revised manuscript as follows:
“Assuming, converter reference current can be calculated using (4) which results in. Considering (28), the Jacobin matrix can be obtained using nominal parameters.”
- Conclusions in the form of a dozen lines of text in a 20-page paper seem extremely poor. Expanding them would certainly increase the value of the paper.
Answer - Many thanks for your comment. The conclusion is revised entirely in the revised manuscript as follows:
“To cope with the drawbacks of the two-loop SMC, a novel adaptive partial SMC (PSMC) is presented for closed-loop control of the switch mode power supplies. Considering the simulation and experimental results, it is shown the developed PSMC can stabilize the output voltage robustly in wide changes of load resistance and input voltage changes in both discontinuous and continuous modes. Furthermore, to avoid the trial and error method during the controller tuning, a systematic approach is developed for controller gains selection which guarantees the stable operation of the closed-loop system. It should be noted that the appropriate ranges of controller gains are obtained considering the root-locus analysis. To extract the controller, first, a fixed frequency PSMC is designed for SMPS based on the nominal values of the converter parameters using the equivalent control approach. To simplify the controller in comparison with the conventional SMCs, the partial SMC (PSMC) approach is introduced in this paper which just requires a part of a sliding surface for controller formulation. The accuracy of the developed PSMC is proved mathematically within the entire range of operation. To improve the robustness of the controller against uncertainties of the model, an adaptive term is added to the designed PSMC. Asymptotical stability of the designed SMC has been demonstrated in both discontinuous and continuous modes using Lyapunov stability criteria. Compared to the standard two-loop controller, it is shown that the presented adaptive PSMC has a superior dynamic response in terms of response overshoot and settling time. The performance and accuracy of the proposed method have been verified using MATLAB/Simulink simulations as well as the practical results.”
- The format of the literature list deviates from journal templates.
The format of references is updated based on the journal’s guidelines.
Small errors
Line 82: No comma after the word example
Line 122: As: what???
Line 183: Is: Fig.2(a); should be Fig. 2(a). Applies to the entire paper.
Line 262. Is: the ??â„Ž parameter. Should be i-th?
Equations 10, 13, 19: Bad formatting of punctuation marks.
Pages 12/13, 13/14. Bad pagination
Figures 6, 7, 8. Vaguely described vertical axis.
Line 452. What is 18?
Answer - Many thanks for your comments. All the mentioned issues are corrected and highlighted in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
A novel adaptive partial SMC (PSMC) for output voltage regulation of the switch mode power supplies is presented in the article. A simplified controller - the partial SMC (PSMC) is introduced as well. Very deep mathematical background is presented, followed by verification of the ideas by simulations (MATLAB) and simple sets of measurements. Generally, there is nothing fundamental to reproach here. The author apparently has considerable publishing experience; nevertheless, after the formal page it is necessary to check the article carefully.
Texts from the abstract are repeated in the introduction chapter – please rephrase these.
Formatting and/or resolution of super/sub-scripting, axis description, etc. in Fig. 3 needs to be improved, the same goes for Fig. 5 and 6.
There are typos in the text, e.g. “The Inducer current”, Hall Effect sensor (improper capitalisation)
+5V („V“ in superscript; e.g. line 419, Fig. 6d, etc.). Unis of „Volts“ are almost always written in a strange ways: sometimes with capital V, sometimes not, mostly as superscript.
Similar goes for a lot of other units - sometimes there is a space between the value and the unit, sometimes not – needs to be unified.
Please use the term “article” instead of “paper”.
Author Response
Reviewer #2
A novel adaptive partial SMC (PSMC) for output voltage regulation of the switch mode power supplies is presented in the article. A simplified controller - the partial SMC (PSMC) is introduced as well. Very deep mathematical background is presented, followed by verification of the ideas by simulations (MATLAB) and simple sets of measurements. Generally, there is nothing fundamental to reproach here. The author apparently has considerable publishing experience; nevertheless, after the formal page it is necessary to check the article carefully.
Texts from the abstract are repeated in the introduction chapter – please rephrase these.
Answer - Many thanks for your comment. The mentioned section in the introduction is rewritten as follows.
“To cope with mentioned issues, a novel PSMC is developed for non-minimum phase SMPS. The design includes a systematic approach for both control extraction and gains selection. The proposed controller is developed just by using a part of sliding surface which can result in the significant simplification of the final control law. Such an approach leads to introduction of partial SMC as a simplified fixed frequency sliding mode controller in this article. The effectiveness of designed PSMC is proved mathematically within the entire range of operation using the Lyapunov criteria. It should be noted that due to systematic selection of the controller’s gains and avoiding the trial and error method, the controller can maintain the stability and robustness of the closed-loop system in a broad operational range. To provide a systematic method for robust control of non-minimum phase SMPS, first, a constant frequency equivalent SMC is designed using the converter nominal parameters. Then, the extracted controller is combined with an adaptive component to ensure asymptotical stability against load and line changes. Using the Lyapunov stability method, it is shown that the designed PSMC can be successfully used for output voltage regulation in both discontinuous and continuous operating modes with zero steady-state error. In addition to simulation results, the controller is implemented practically using the TMS3220F2810 digital signal processor from Texas Instruments for experimental verifications. It is proved that the dynamic response of the proposed approach is faster than the standard double-loop SMC during load and line changes. Also, it is seen that the developed controller is robust against model changes in both continuous and discontinuous operations.”.
Formatting and/or resolution of super/sub-scripting, axis description, etc. in Fig. 3 needs to be improved, the same goes for Fig. 5 and 6.
Answer - Many thanks for your comment. The mentioned figures are replaced with a high-quality pictures in the revised manuscript. Also, in the practical results, the vertical and time scales are mentioned in the subscripts.
There are typos in the text, e.g. “The Inducer current”, Hall Effect sensor (improper capitalisation)
Answer - These issues are corrected in the revised manuscript.
+5V („V“ in superscript; e.g. line 419, Fig. 6d, etc.). Unis of „Volts“ are almost always written in a strange ways: sometimes with capital V, sometimes not, mostly as superscript.
Similar goes for a lot of other units - sometimes there is a space between the value and the unit, sometimes not – needs to be unified.
Answer - Many thanks for your comments. The units are given properly in the revised manuscript.
Please use the term “article” instead of “paper”.
Answer - The Word “paper” is replaced with the “article” in the revised paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. In Introduction, the main contribution should be more emphasized in compact form.
2. The sliding mode control proposed in the paper is very similar form compared with the existing controllers. What is the main difference?
3. Please show the adaptation result for rho_hat.
Author Response
- In Introduction, the main contribution should be more emphasized in compact form.
Answer - Many thanks for your comment. The contribution of the paper is clarified and highlighted in the revised manuscript as follows.
To cope with mentioned issues, a novel PSMC is developed for non-minimum phase SMPS. The design includes a systematic approach for both control extraction and gains selection. The proposed controller is developed just by using a part of sliding surface which can result in the significant simplification of the final control law. Such an approach leads to the introduction of partial SMC as a simplified fixed frequency sliding mode controller in this article.
- The sliding mode control proposed in the paper is very similar form compared with the existing controllers. What is the main difference?
Answer - As it is mentioned before, the proposed controller is developed just by using a part of sliding surface which can result in the significant simplification of the final control law. Such an approach leads to the introduction of partial SMC as a simplified fixed frequency sliding mode controller in this article. The effectiveness of the designed PSMC is proved mathematically within the entire range of operation using the Lyapunov criteria. It should be noted that due to the systematic selection of the controller’s gains and avoiding the trial and error method, the controller can maintain the stability and robustness of the closed-loop system in a broad operational range.
- Please show the adaptation result for rho_hat.
Answer - Many thanks for the comment. Considering the section 3-4, it is mentioned that to improve the system's robustness, an adaptive PSMC is presented in the section 3-3 and the estimation law is extracted. According to (42), it can be shown that if is a bounded parameter, asymptotical convergence of the proposed controller can be proved just by choosing , despite the model uncertainty. In such a way, the estimation rule will no longer be needed and hence, it is not necessary to update the value of rho_hat based on the estimation rule anymore. Such an idea results in more simplification of the final controller. However, considering the suggestion of the respected reviewer, these modifications are clarified in the revised manuscript that the proposed controller doesn’t need a parameter adaptation rule indeed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf