PONE-D-24-40676Active power filter control strategy based on repetitive quasi-proportional resonant control with linear active disturbance rejection controlPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhu,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 19 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,

Akhtar Rasool, Ph.D.

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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

3. Please note that PLOS ONE has spec6ific 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.

4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

Additional Editor Comments:

The topology connections are not correct in figure 1.

Almost all figures require corrections too. The legends should be added properly. Even corrections are required in X and Y labeling. Since the figure numbers and captions are not provided with the figures, it is not easy to write/raise concerns in the specific figures. The results plots are also not provided with good resolution quality.

I dont think it is right to write modelling equations directly into a dq frame. It is therefore recommended strongly to also write the equations as per the topology provided before showing conversion to the dq frame, but it should be supported with at least needful discussion, if the authors dont feel it necessary to put all steps.

In line 148-149, controller gains are used, is there any specific reason/justification for selecting these?

Error equations could not be found, which are used for the formation/defining the controller.

The article has a lot of disconnection sections. So, I strongly advise the authors to revise (major) to complete/connect the missing parts to make the article more follow-able, understandable for the audience. The authors must understand that the article is also to be read by the new researchers for guidance and sequence of the matter presented, connections between the sections is very vital to be able to understand. However, currently it requires a lot of serious attention to fill the gaps besides some serious corrections.

Please address all concerns raised here and those raised by the reviewers point by point so it becomes convenient for the reviewers and the editor to see the particular sections to be able to help make a decision fast. Please note that the responses should be supported by the relevant changes in the article. Thanks

Looking forward to seeing your comprehensively revised article.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

**********

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: This manuscript proposes an active power filter control strategy based on repetitive quasi-proportional resonant control with linear active disturbance rejection control. The idea is feasible and there is a scientific soundness in this paper. This is one of the good papers I have ever reviewed. However, there are some comments that need to be considered. The reviewer has the following concerns after careful reading:

1. There are a few writing issues. Also, the correct ‎punctuation rules are not observed in the text.

2. Some Nomenclature are not defined. Even the term is known, ‎any abbreviation should be defined for the first time, Then, no need to write the whole definition; please unify. The index terms are ‎not alphabetically ordered.‎ Could you ‎insert any reference for equations? It is more suitable to determine the ‎references ‎or explain the design procedure that was adopted to get these equations.

3. In the "Introduction" you claimed that “only 80% of harmonics can be filtered out at most by the passive power filters”, which is not accurate. So, the "Introduction" section should be made much more impressive and enriched with references by ‎adding and citing ‎the trends in the area of harmonics mitigation by passive power filters. E.g., High-frequency harmonics suppression in high-speed railway through magnetic integrated LLCL filter, Magnetic integrated double-trap filter utilizing the mutual inductance for reducing current harmonics in high-speed railway traction inverters, Magnetic integrated LLCL filter with resonant ‎frequency above Nyquist frequency, and Enhancing power quality of high-speed ‎railway traction converters by fully integrated T-LCL filter.‎ Some of These studies, which are published in the same journal PLOS ONE, are recent and discussing the latest techniques. Moreover, you claimed that “the higher the harmonic order, the less the harmonic current content, so it is usually only necessary to consider within 25 times” and only focused on 5th, 7th and 11th harmonic suppression. But, actually, the big issue in grid-connected converters is the switching harmonics, which you did not consider in the paper. You need to reconsider it and compare the ability of the proposed active power filter with the passive power filters. Furthermore, you are using an LCL filter, which is enough to suppress the harmonics is designed properly. So, what is the benefit of the proposed technique?

4. How did you select the parameters values?

5. Figures 17(b), 18(b), 17(d), and 18(d) were not explained and mentioned in the text.

6. The HIL advantages should be explained like those in new references High-frequency harmonics suppression in high-speed railway through magnetic integrated LLCL filter and Magnetic integrated double-trap filter utilizing the mutual inductance for reducing current harmonics in high-speed railway traction inverters. Otherwise, the real experiments are required.

7. The conclusion should be point wise.

8. In the technical writing, it is not true to write “we, I, our, etc.”. Moreover, you are not only one author, so, it is not true to write “I, my, etc.”. In addition, it is not preferred to thank your institutions. They, of course, help you achieve your research because it is their duties.

9. Many of the references are old. A state-of-the-art (SotA) review is preferred to show the real advantages of the proposed method against the recent literatures. All the references have no DOI. The format of references needs to be unified. Moreover, references need to be written in a standardized way. Many references are conferences papers.

From the aforementioned comments, I suggest the authors do more work in this field.‎ In the reviewers' opinion, the presented paper is sufficiently prepared ‎as a professional research paper. I tried to help you collect these comments as ‎‎highlighted in the attached file. Please consider my specific comments above.‎

Reviewer #2: The proposed method, though effective, appears complex, and the manuscript could benefit from a discussion on the feasibility and limitations of implementing this strategy in real-world scenarios.

While the paper compares the proposed method to traditional PI control, it lacks comparisons with more recent or alternative advanced harmonic suppression techniques.

The LADRC and QPR controllers involve multiple parameters. Providing guidelines or a systematic approach for parameter tuning would make the methodology more accessible.

**********

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: 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: plos_latex_template.pdf

Active power filter control strategy based on repetitive quasi-proportional resonant control with linear active disturbance rejection control

PONE-D-24-40676R1

Dear Dr. Zhu,

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,

Akhtar Rasool, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The reviewers have mentioned a few corrections to be made in the manuscript. However, they have suggested the revision has made acceptable improvements in the article. Thus, this is considered for acceptance, subject to the minor corrections.

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #3: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #1: Thank you for the revisions. The revised manuscript can be accepted for publication. ‎Congratulations.

I only have a minor notice about Figures 17(A-C) and 19(D-F), which can be considered in the final version. These figures were not explained and mentioned in the text. They need to be explained and mentioned in the text. The paper is not required to be sent again to the reviewer. You just consider this note before publishing the paper. Congratulations‎ again.

Reviewer #3: This is a good manuscript and the revision version has addressed all comments suggested by the reviewer.

However, a minor correction regarding;

Is 'Parameter Turning' correct? I believe it should be 'Parameter Tuning'

The images of waveform are not clear. The numbers at x and y axis couldn't be read clearly.

**********

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 #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********