A 3-to-5 V Input, 80 Peak-to-Peak Voltage (Vpp) Output, 2.75% Total Harmonic Distortion Plus Noise (THD+N), 2.9 μF Load Piezoelectric Actuator Driver with Four-Switch Buck–Boost
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, a drive system for energy harvest of piezoelectric ceramics is proposed, based on dual closed loop control method and four-switch buck-boost circuit. The dual closed loop controller consists of the voltage loop with PI and the current loop with P, where the parameters are determined by root trajectory method. The aim is to improve the performance to drive the load capacitance. The effectiveness of the system is tested and validated by simulation and experiment. Compared with existing methods, the results show that the proposed method can increase the load capacitance significantly.
Overall, this work is valuable for reference. However, the authors need to consider some changes. A few comments from me, below:
1. Although the system proposed in this paper increases the load capacitance, it also increases THD. This seems to be improving one performance at the expense of another. Given the results, the advantages of this system in application and the innovation of this paper need to be further highlighted.
2. Equation (2) seems to be wrong.
3. In Line 131, “According to the above transfer function…”. I can't find any transfer function above.
4. Why is PI not used in the current loop?
5. In Line 141, “… to obtain more suitable damping, …”. What is the basis for determining suitable damping? Is it overshoot? It requires a more specific explanation.
6. From the Table 3, it can be seen that the relationship between the voltage outer loop integration factor and THD is nonlinear. Is it required more factor comparisons to determine the PI-P settings?
7. Is the power consumption of the controller taken into account?
8. In Section 3.2, it could be useful to the reader to know the simulation structure diagram.
In Line 203, the letters need to be checked carefully. Furthermore, more thorough check of language will be a good idea.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The manuscript should be revised before it is published. My comments are listed in the attachment.
Kind Regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
English should be polished.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed all concerns sucesfully.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been revised according to my remarks. It can be published in present form.
Kind regards
