Dear Authors:

Based on peer reviews, we have determined that your paper might be of interest for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery after revisions that have properly addressed the concerns of the reviewers and editor.

Please note that this is NOT a conditional acceptance of your paper and the revised version could still be rejected. It is, rather, recognition by our reviewers and editors that your paper merits further consideration.

Please pay attention to the following when preparing and submitting your revision:

1.      You shall submit your revision within 6 weeks (for first revision) or 4 weeks (for subsequent revisions). Under exceptional cases, you may be granted an extension.

2.      Please implement as many improvements as possible in the revised paper following the reviewers’ comments, as the future readers will only have access to your paper, not your response to the reviewers. You must mark changes made in a DIFFERENT COLOUR to facilitate the next round of review.

3.      In addition, you shall submit a response to the reviewer comments. It is important to address each comment POINT-BY-POINT in your response file and to cover all the comments. If you don’t agree with some of the comments, please present your reasons to convince the reviewers.

4.      You may use the cover letter to provide confidential comments to the editor under some exceptional cases. For example, there is a fundamental disagreement with a reviewer’s comments and you are not comfortable to share your concerns with the reviewer. If you decide to provide confidential comments, indicate in your regular response file that you have additional comments to the editor in the cover letter. You may color this statement so that the editor can identify it easily.

5.      You are recommended not to exceed 8 pages for the revised version. In the event you have to use more pages to address reviewer comments properly, you can add a maximum of two extra pages. Please provide a justification for the extra pages in your response file. Under no circumstances a revision can have more than 10 pages.

6.      Comments in the form of attachments may not be sent by this email sometimes. So please check the account of submitting author for additional comments. If you only find comments from 1 or 2 reviewers for a R0 version paper, you may write to EIC to check if the comments are misplaced by the reviewer.

7.      PWRD editorial board discourages multi-rounds of revisions. It is the responsibility of the authors to bring a paper to acceptable level within one or two rounds of reviews. The reviewers have no obligation to improve a paper for the authors.

More information can be found from http://sites.ieee.org/tpwrd/

Finally, I would like to encourage you to contribute to PWRD paper review in the future. Note that three or four volunteer reviewers have made it possible for your paper to be processed by the editorial board.

Please don’t reply to this email unless you have specific questions requiring my attention.

Sincerely yours,

Prof. Wilsun Xu
Editor-in-Chief, Transactions on Power Delivery


COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS:

Editor-in-Chief's Comments: This paper requires significant editorial improvements. See Part II of the following page:

http://sites.ieee.org/tpwrd/pwrd-resource-site-how-to-write-a-good-paper/


Editor
Editor Comments for Author:
Reviewers are looking for a number of important clarifications which need to be answered by the authors.  The entire paper needs careful editing/re-writing as the English is weak in many instances.

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author
The paper is using eigen value analysis to study parallelled converters and it is doing it quite systematically so it can be used by others. It is also showing participating factors for the resonances which is also being used more and more to find the root cause for the problems - recently also PLL's have been considered in this analysis. A few comments could be added to this point as it also has some influence on it. In Fig 1 is explained that a dead beat controller is used and then a Little later it is PR controllers - so what is selected in the analysis.
I will also suggest the language become improved for this paper. Eigenvalue analysis was presented for a Wind farm recently and also using participation factor - take a look at  Esmaeil Ebrahimzadeh work

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author
The authors have presented a harmonic resonance investigation for a muti-inverter distribution system using resonance modal analysis.
Can the authors clarify the following queries that need to be clarified in the revisions:
1. The authors use proportional-resonant controller in the inverter control system and the transfer functions are derived based on this.  How about other controllers used in the industry? How such controllers affect the resonant modes?
2.One of the symbol notations for the proportional-resonant controller parameters given in Table 1 is wrong.
3. The resistance of the filter inductance is not considered in the analysis. Can the authors explain how finite filter resistances affect the resonance modal analysis?

Reviewer: 3

Comments to the Author
The analysis presented is for an inverter controlled using a PR controller. Why is Fig. 1 showing a deadbeat controller?
Authors should explain or refer to the derivation of (3) and (4).
What would be the impact on the results/analysis if the PR controller with harmonic compensation?
Cf seems quite large - about 2 A flowing through each filter capacitor
The contribution of the paper has not been clearly identified
The quality of the paper needs to be improved in general as it is very hard to follow whats presented. There are many grammatical mistakes. 返回小木虫查看更多