Matrix Extraction of Parasitic Parameters and Suppression of Common-Mode Conducted Interference in a PMSG-IDOS Rectifier Module

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, the author proposed the interesting matrix extraction method to demonstrate parasitic parameters and provided a solution for suppressing EMI on rectifier module of PMSG integrated DC system. The studied target in this system is high-speed switching MOSFET device applied to rectifier under low voltage and high-power conditions. To accomplish this, the author analyzed and compared some methods of PWM rectifiers for suppressing common-mode interference by simulation and experiment. Finally, a recommendation is provided. The following comments are provided:

Organization and presentation:

The paper has not arranged properly. Sample detailed points are as below:

- In the introduction and method sections, it is said that the major objects are "SiC MOSFET" and "SVPWM jump-backward control strategy". However, there is no explanation and discussion for the reason why employing these. There seems to be no references for them.

- Some symbols in equations and figures were not properly defined.

- Lack of object captions and labels in some figures, for example in figures 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 25, 30, 31.

- Size and font of captions in figure are not homogeneous.

Contents and academic methodology: Author should clarify the advantages of the proposed rectifier topology and PWM method. This would strengthen the contribution of this paper. It should be compared to conventional rectifiers about CM spectrum and THD. Author may add some references for the spectrum diagrams in Figure 17, Figure 20, Figure 23, Figure 26, Figure 30, and Figure 31. The overall circuit diagram model in simulation, including both power and control parts should be built. In Q3D simulation results in Figure 11 and Figure 25, only parasitic capacitance of the MOSFET is considered without the parasitic inductance and resistance, whereas they exist in equivalent circuit shown in Figure 18, why? Only the parasitic components on the MOSFET devices are regarded, while a number of other interference elements on PCB is neglected. Author may have to explain this. Why are there differences between the two results from simulation in Figure 28 and from experiment in Figure 32 in time from 0.0s to 0.1s? Please add an analysis for this situation and clearly indicate the time applied load in the caption or figure. Equation 12 should be re-typed to be more clearly. The definition of I.L asymptotes is not explained clearly in literature review and not cited in reference. How the cut-off frequencies of LC-type filter and π-type filter as given in line 307, 308 is determined? It is suggested to explain the relationship between the X-Y axis in Figure 19 and their physical meanings. There may be some incorrect denotation in Figure 28.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting and well written, although there are some improvements to do:

Please in the abstract define the acronym PMSG-IDOS; Please in the abstract define the acronym SVPWM; In the introduction you give a long talk about already present in literature techniques together with their pros and cons but when you present your methodology you do not highlight the improvements of your proposed method to overcome the problems that were met by other methods in the literature; please highlight the pros and if evident also the cons of your method with comparison to the description you made of other methods; Line 263 page 10, Figure 18 it is not clear if the reference to the figure is right or wrong, the Figure 17 below was never referenced in the text, that is a little bit weird too; Line 303, what do I.L asymptotes represent? please define the acronym; Line 391, Figure 28-b no 29-b; Line 406, Figure 31-a should be figure 30-a; The results are good, and they are well presented but the paper lacks to highlight what are the improvements introduced by the proposed method with respect to others (pros and cons) and no result comparisons are carried out;

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no more comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors really improved the understanding of the paper from the reader side point of view; the paper is now more clear and theintroduced improvements with comparison to the literature are more evident.

The only request by the reviewer at the moment is to enrich the references :

At row 41 page 1, as an example of application of a permanent magnet synchronous machine at low voltage in the automotive sector, please make reference to:

De Santis, S. Agnelli, F. Patanè, O. Giannini, G. Bella, “Experimental Study for the Assessment of the Measurement Uncertainty Associated with Electric Powertrain Efficiency Using the Back-to-Back Direct Method”, Energies 2018, 11(12), 3536; https://doi.org/10.3390/en11123536;