PONE-D-24-09884Use of multicellular converter in PV chain for improving of energy efficiency and minimization of power oscillationsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. BYANPAMBE,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

The reviewers have highlighted significant questions and comments regarding your manuscript that require careful consideration. I encourage you to revise your manuscript accordingly. When submitting your revised version, please include a separate file containing your detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, addressing them point by point. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 21 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohit Bajaj

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This project is supported via funding from Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, project

number (PSAU/2024/R/1445).”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: How does the proposed multicellular parallel boost converter compare to existing solutions in terms of efficiency and cost?

Given the environmental conditions' impact on photovoltaic (PV) generator performance, how does the proposed solution ensure consistent energy output across varying conditions?

The introduction mentions several maximum power point tracking (MPPT) techniques. Can you detail how the proposed solution improves upon these or integrates with them?

Can you elaborate on the specific challenges the multicellular converter addresses in non-linear load applications, such as harmonic currents and chaotic behavior?

How does the introduction of multicellular converters impact the overall lifecycle and maintenance costs of PV systems?

How does the modeling of the multicellular boost converter account for real-world inefficiencies, such as component losses and non-ideal behaviors?

The method section discusses the control of inductance current. Can you explain the advantages of this approach over voltage-based control methods in PV systems?

How does the proposed method ensure stability and robustness in the face of sudden changes in environmental conditions?

Can you discuss the scalability of the presented method? How does it perform when scaled up for larger PV installations?

Given the detailed mathematical modeling, how accessible is this method for practical implementation by engineers in the field?

The results show improved efficiency with multicellular converters. Can you quantify the impact on overall system cost and return on investment?

How do the simulation results compare with real-world testing and validations? Are there any discrepancies, and how were they addressed?

The paper mentions rapid pursuit of the MPP despite irradiance variations. How does this rapid tracking affect the system's longevity and reliability?

Can you detail any specific challenges encountered during the simulation, particularly with modeling environmental variations?

How does the efficiency and performance of the proposed system compare to leading commercial systems currently available on the market?

The conclusion mentions the effectiveness of the method under various environmental conditions. Can you provide more details on limitations or conditions where the proposed solution might not perform optimally?

Given the conclusion's claims about reducing power oscillations and switching losses, what are the anticipated impacts on the broader adoption of PV systems?

Can you elaborate on potential future research directions suggested by the findings of this paper?

How do the authors envision the integration of their solution with existing PV infrastructure, particularly in urban settings?

The conclusion suggests improved energy efficiency. Can you discuss any potential environmental impacts, positive or negative, that might arise from the widespread adoption of this technology?

Reviewer #2: This article discusses the role of multicellular converters in enhancing the quality of electrical energy in photovoltaic systems, aiming to maximize power output with minimal oscillations around the maximum power point and reduced switching losses. Through modeling and simulation in Matlab/Simulink, the proposed solutions demonstrate effective performance under irradiance and temperature fluctuations. The subject matter is intriguing, yet there are minor suggestions for improvement. The specific points to address are outlined below:

Clearly articulate the novelty of the proposed control algorithm in the abstract. It remains ambiguous which aspect of the design is innovative.

The derivation of the control design lacks sufficient explanation. Clarification is needed regarding how the control law was derived, including the steps involved.

Justification for the selection of controller gains is necessary.

Provide further elucidation on the advantages and enhancements of the proposed method and technology. Additionally, compare these findings with existing literature. Acknowledge that the control design techniques employed here are akin to those in other studies, but highlight and discuss the challenges encountered in this research to demonstrate that it is not merely an incremental extension of existing methodologies.

I understand that hardware realization may not be possible due to lack of hardware resources. However, please include a critical discussion on what could be anticipated challenges if the proposed algorithm is realized on a real quadrotor system.

Integrating additional performance indices could offer a more comprehensive verification of the controller's performance.

Enhance the discussion on existing control algorithms in the introduction with recent references, such as those available at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293878, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298093, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3344451, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2023.1293267.

Incorporate a discussion on the limitations of the control law in the conclusions section.

Address the issue of chattering inherent in sliding mode control variants. Reference the ' Maximum Power Extraction from a Standalone Photo Voltaic System via Neuro-adaptive Arbitrary Order Sliding Mode Control Strategy with High Gain Differentiation ' and explore potential mitigation strategies in detail.

Conduct a thorough proofreading of the paper to rectify any typos and enhance linguistic clarity.

Ensure that all abbreviations are defined and explained within the text.

Reviewer #3: My review comments are below:

1. Please consider that the presented boost and interleaved boost converters are conventional converters that cannot transfer high powers and work under limited values of power. The presented parallel cell type application of the boot converter is not a novel idea and has been pesented aleady in detail. Therefore I suggest the authors to focus on the control process and reflex this topic on the title of the paper.

2. The calculation of the efficiency for the proposed converter should be presented in detail. By considering the paper at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142061520313958, authors should present the converter efficiency under different working conditions. Compare your results with this paper.

3. The state of the active and passive components under the proposed controller system should be presented in detail. See the paper at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00202-024-02295-x, and draw your voltage and current graphics according to figures 4 and 6 of this paper. Compare your results with this apper.

4. The voltage and currents under different duty ratios and dynamic loads should be considered and presented by Matlab Simulink.

5. A table should be presented, and advantages and disadvantages of the proposed controller compared with other conventional controllers. Different parameters like the complexity of the control process in practice, cost of the system, efficiency, etc., can be compared.

6. Present several graphics based on the table in comment 5 and present your results. Readers can understand better the advantages of the suggested controller graphically.

Reviewer #4: This article proposes a method to improve the efficiency of photovoltaic (PV) systems by controlling the current through the inductance of a boost converter. Here's a breakdown of the key points and some suggestions for improvement:

1-While the combination of current control and multicellular converters might be interesting, the novelty of the approach compared to existing methods isn't clearly highlighted.

2-The specific algorithm used for Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is not mentioned.

3-The switching frequency isn't explicitly stated, which can impact efficiency.

4-Compare the proposed method with existing MPPT (Maximum Power Point Tracking) techniques in terms of efficiency, response time, and complexity.

5-Discuss the limitations of the proposed method and potential areas for future work.

6- Specify the PSO algorithm used and its parameters.

7- Mention the switching frequency used in the simulations.

8- Consider including simulations with more realistic scenarios like partial shading.

Reviewer #5: The paper is readability.

- the all figures should be high quality.

- to cite the reference such as "described by [[44]-[45]]", please check there are double []!.

- check the journal format

- Fig. 17-21 should be explained in more details.

Reviewer #6: Comments to the Author:

The manuscript is well presented with use of multicellular converter in PV chain for improving efficiency and to reduce power oscillations. The paper can be accepted with minor revision and grammatical corrections. The following points can be followed to update/strengthen the manuscript:

1. The manuscript has some grammatical mistakes - Please check it.

2. Literature review is shallow

3. Authors mentioned thaat the efficiency is 99.65% for Inductance current and 99.6% for sliding method which is not convincing due to the passive components involved in the boost converter.

4. The analysis of traditional DC/DC converters can be presented with respect to various duty cycle with the suggested MPP.

5. Novelty of the proposed work should be established by comparing the same with comparable work. Authors can justify or compare the following MPPT based boost converter and justify how the presented MPP technique is superior to other MPPT approaches.

i. Nagaraja Rao, S., Anisetty, S. K., Manjunatha, B. M., Kiran Kumar, B. M., Praveen Kumar, V., & Pranupa, S. (2022). Interleaved high-gain boost converter powered by solar energy using hybrid-based MPP tracking technique. Clean Energy, 6(3), 460-475.

ii. Veerabhadra, & Nagaraja Rao, S. (2022). Assessment of high-gain quadratic boost converter with hybrid-based maximum power point tracking technique for solar photovoltaic systems. Clean Energy, 6(4), 632-645.

6. In the abstract and conclusion, the results performances should be reflected which helps to improve the quality of the manuscript. Add the results values in the abstract.

Reviewer #7: The authors presented “Use of multicellular converter in PV chain for improving energy efficiency and minimization of power oscillations,” which is very interesting. However, it requires a few suggestions to improve. The suggestions and comments are as follows:

1. The presented work is very good. The title of the paper needs to reflect the work that is presented.

2. The abstract needs to highlight some significant results. It should include 1-2 lines of gaps, authors' contributions, and advantages of the work.

3. The introduction section needs to be improved. Try to avoid bulk referencing (ex: ) [[1]-[4]]) , also, the references should be in chronological order.

4. The literature survey can be improved by adding more related papers. It is advised to add the following papers to improve the introduction section.

https://doi.org/10.1002/oca.2773, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12667-021-00465-5, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40435-023-01274-7,

5. The authors should add more results to show the speed of tracking and the accuracy of tracking.

6. The simulation results should be shown in good-quality figures.

7. In simulation results, to highlight the effectiveness of the proposed MPPT, the authors are recommended to compare their method with other methods that also target fast MPPT convergence to provide a fair comparison. This can highlight the paper's contribution to already existing fast methods for MPT.

8. Detailed circuit parameters should be included in the manuscript.

9. The paper requires further English revision as it has many grammatical mistakes.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Safeer Ullah

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: Yes: Dr. S. Nagaraja Rao

Reviewer #7: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments to the Author_PLOS.docx

A modified fractional short circuit current MPPT and multicellular converter for improving power quality and efficiency in PV chain

PONE-D-24-09884R1

Dear Dr. BYANPAMBE,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Dr. Mohit Bajaj

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #7: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: N/A

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have made commendable efforts to revise the paper in accordance with the reviewers' comments. However, I was unable to locate their point-by-point responses to each question.

Reviewer #3: While some comments were not addressed and incorporated in the revision, the revised manuscript is in a better state compared to the initially submitted paper and can be considered for publication.

Reviewer #4: I don't have any additional comments for the author including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics.

Reviewer #5: All comments are addressed and the all figures are improved but still the figures can be expanded in order to see clearly. The paper is well revised. It is very interesting.

Reviewer #6: Authors have answered all the queries raised by the reviewers.

I feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

Reviewer #7: Appreciate all authors for their efforts to address all comments and suggestions.. the revised version of the manuscript is very well in the standards

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Safeer Ullah

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: Yes: Dr. S. Nagaraja Rao

Reviewer #7: No

**********