An Impedance Source Multi-Level Three Phase Inverter with Common Mode Voltage Elimination and Dead Time Compensation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper review
An Impedance Source Multi-Level Three Phase Inverter with Common Mode Voltage Elimination and Dead Time Compensation
Authors: Mehrdad Mahmoudian , Maziyar Fakhraei , Eduardo M. G. Rodrigues , Edris Pouresmaeil
The paper has an important and very useful contribution to reducing the common mode voltage in three-phase motor-loaded inverters. The authors propose a software method based on a modulation technique detailed in the content of the paper.
In the beginning of the paper the stage of their research is explained, using significant references. Next, the authors present the theoretical part of the method and the experimentally results. In the theoretical presentation that are a number of format mistakes, references to other figures, notations unexplained, the same variable denoted differently all that, making the reading difficult and recommending the paper to be revised before final acceptance.
In conclusion, the paper contains a valuable contribution with the drawback of increasing the total harmonic distortion of output current and the exact compensation of switching semiconductor device dead time. The contribution is a step ahead in the research field and after a minor revision in the paper presentation I recommend it to be published.
Author Response
Reply to the Reviewers’ Comments for Paper with ID number electronics-930924 entitled “An Impedance Source Multi-Level Three Phase Inverter with Common Mode Voltage Elimination and Dead Time Compensation”
We would like to thank the “Electronics” editor for giving us the opportunity to revise and reply to reviewers. We also appreciate the reviewers for their constructive and detailed comments. We have responded to all questions and comments either in the text of the revised paper or directly to each reviewer in this manuscript. Below are the answers (in bold) to each comment. In the text, in order to facilitate the revision of the article, all changes were marked in green.
Reviewer 1 Comments:
The paper has an important and very useful contribution to reducing the common mode voltage in three-phase motor-loaded inverters. The authors propose a software method based on a modulation technique detailed in the content of the paper.
In the beginning of the paper the stage of their research is explained, using significant references. Next, the authors present the theoretical part of the method and the experimentally results. In the theoretical presentation that are a number of format mistakes, references to other figures, notations unexplained, the same variable denoted differently all that, making the reading difficult and recommending the paper to be revised before final acceptance.
In conclusion, the paper contains a valuable contribution with the drawback of increasing the total harmonic distortion of output current and the exact compensation of switching semiconductor device dead time. The contribution is a step ahead in the research field and after a minor revision in the paper presentation I recommend it to be published.
Answer1: The authors appreciate the dear reviewer for this positive comment. All of the English writing mistakes such as grammar errors and punctuations have been revised and rechecked several times to make the readability better. Likewise, the references and the parameters definitions have been updated precisely.
*
We are truly grateful to the reviewer for their positive attitude to the conducted study and their objective assessment of the manuscript. It was of much interest to us to enrich our studies through making every possible modification recommended by each reviewer to the original work. We believe that the comments have been highly constructive and very useful to revise the manuscript.
We hope that all these changes fulfill the requirements to make the manuscript acceptable for publication in “Electronics” journal.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper proposed a switching method for a z-source NPC inverter.
The paper cannot be accepted in the current form because of the following reasons.
- Extensive corrections for the expressions are required. There are a lot of inappropriate expressions in the paper.
- Lots of information are missing in the paper. Especially, many symbols in equations are written without any explanations, i.e., tST in equation (6), MB in (7), VA in Tabe 1, B in (9), etc. No reader can understand the paper without the details.
- There are also lots of information that does not need in this paper. For example, the section 2.Bearing current explains the structure and type of bearings which is not directly related with the paper. The reviewer think that entire part of the section 2 can be removed.
- Also, the introduction section is too lengthy. There are too many papers that has weak connection with the main idea of the paper. Please focus on the subject of the paper and make a concise and concentrated introduction.
- The beginning part of section 4 is also redundant and well-known. Furthermore, there was no further discussion about the circuit in Fig. 4 in the later part of the paper. Is there any reason that the authors insert Fig.4 in this paper?
- The Z-source inverter is very well-known technology. The novelty of the proposed system must be clearly shown to be accepted.
- The contribution of the paper is not clear as well.
Author Response
Reply to the Reviewers’ Comments for Paper with ID number electronics-930924 entitled “An Impedance Source Multi-Level Three Phase Inverter with Common Mode Voltage Elimination and Dead Time Compensation”
We would like to thank the “Electronics” editor for giving us the opportunity to revise and reply to reviewers. We also appreciate the reviewers for their constructive and detailed comments. We have responded to all questions and comments either in the text of the revised paper or directly to each reviewer in this manuscript. Below are the answers (in bold) to each comment. In the text, in order to facilitate the revision of the article, all changes were marked in green.
Reviewer 2 Comments:
The paper proposed a switching method for a z-source NPC inverter. The paper cannot be accepted in the current form because of the following reasons.
Q1) Extensive corrections for the expressions are required. There are a lot of inappropriate expressions in the paper.
Answer1: The authors would like to thank reviewer for this comment. The whole manuscript has been revised in order to make it better in English writing and avoid using inappropriate expressions in the paper.
*
Q2) Lots of information are missing in the paper. Especially, many symbols in equations are written without any explanations, i.e., tST in equation (6), MB in (7), VA in Tabe 1, B in (9), etc. No reader can understand the paper without the details.
Answer1: The authors apologize for these inconveniences. All of information needed have been added to the paper in appropriate locations.
*
Q3) There are also lots of information that does not need in this paper. For example, the section 2.Bearing current explains the structure and type of bearings which is not directly related with the paper. The reviewer think that entire part of the section 2 can be removed
Answer3: We thank the dear reviewer. The section 2 has been removed successfully.
*
Q4) Also, the introduction section is too lengthy. There are too many papers that has weak connection with the main idea of the paper. Please focus on the subject of the paper and make a concise and concentrated introduction
Answer4: The authors appreciate the dear reviewer for this comment. The introduction section includes almost all the methods which have been used to mitigate the CMV. In order to have a complete background, the authors gathered many information to write the introduction. By the way, if the reviewer asks us to decrease this section, we can do it in the second round of revision.
*
Q5) The beginning part of section 4 is also redundant and well-known. Furthermore, there was no further discussion about the circuit in Fig. 4 in the later part of the paper. Is there any reason that the authors insert Fig.4 in this paper?
Answer5: We thanks the dear reviewer for this comment. Fig. 4 is the equivalent circuit of motor capacitors shown in Fig. 3. We think that the readers should know how the equivalent circuit is obtained and how the CMV is calculated. It helps the reader to understand the effect of each part of motor capacitance.
*
Q6) The Z-source inverter is very well-known technology. The novelty of the proposed system must be clearly shown to be accepted.
Q7) The contribution of the paper is not clear as well
Answer 6 & 7: The authors appreciate the dear reviewer for these comments. The main contribution of this paper is not to show how the ZSI works in ASDs or speed/torque control for induction machines. However, the authors try to represent a new control approach for the CMV mitigation while the Z-source technology is utilized. In this way, since the dead time of power electronics devices is not compensated, many high-frequency pulses with large amplitude will add to the main voltage. This effect has not been considered in ZSIs when the authors take a good review on this background. Therefore, the main contribution of the paper includes dead time compensation is Z-source ASDs to mitigate the CMV and eliminate the bearing current.
*
We are truly grateful to the reviewer for their positive attitude to the conducted study and their objective assessment of the manuscript. It was of much interest to us to enrich our studies through making every possible modification recommended by each reviewer to the original work. We believe that the comments have been highly constructive and very useful to revise the manuscript.
We hope that all these changes fulfill the requirements to make the manuscript acceptable for publication in “Electronics” journal.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised paper significantly improved compared to the original one. The paper can be accepted if the waveforms in Fig.12 - Fig. 15 are changed to clear figures.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer:
We would like to thank the reviewer very much for reviewing the article and for all the comments and suggestions that contributed to the improvement of the paper. We really appreciate the hard work you have done and want to acknowledge the tremendous contribution. We hope that we have responded to all comments and made all changes accordingly. Thank you very much.
Below are the answers (in italics) to each comment. In the text, in order to facilitate the revision of the article, all changes were marked in green.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully,
The Authors
-------------------------------------
Reviewer comments: The revised paper significantly improved compared to the original one. The paper can be accepted if the waveforms in Fig.12 - Fig. 15 are changed to clear figures.Answer: We would like to thank you very much for the comment and all the positive and constructive words that helped us improve this paper. Fig. 12 has been renewed and updated in the manuscript, but unfortunately the Figs. 13 to 15 could not be changed to clear ones, because these are extracted from an old low end oscilloscope (YB4365L analogue model).
