Design Methodology and Analysis of Five-Level LLC Resonant Converter for Battery Chargers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript by Alatai et al. deals with the Design and the analysis of  LLC Resonant Converter. Manuscript is clear, well written and scientifically sounding. A more careful proof-reading is required because some typos (i.e. in figures numbering) are present trhoughout the text. Authors should better clarify the novelty of the proposed approach (even providing a comparison with state-of-art methodologies). Number of figures should be reduced and some of them should be presented as supporting informartion. My only concern is the final destination of the manuscript: why sustainability? Is enough to work with battery chargers to claim the sustainability of the topic?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript proposes a five-level LLC resonant DC–DC converter design procedure for 12battery chargers. Further, an experimental model was also developed and validated with a 100 V_DC input voltage. The idea is good and experimentally verified; however, it needs the comparison, and many issues should be addressed according to the following comments:

1) The readability, presentation, and more results and discussions of this study should be further improved and be simple to the reader. Please, correct the language problems, it is weak from the Grammarly and sequences of events, I catch 19 errors by using a personal program. The paper should be proofread very carefully by a native speaker or a proofreading agent.

2) The "Abstract" section should be more intensively focused on the main idea directly and must contain the contribution of this manuscript with numerical result indicators. Also, I see there is no need for the abbreviations of CV and ZVS, just mentioned one time in the abstract section.

3) The "Introduction" section should be made much more impressive and focused on the main idea directly by highlighting your contributions. The novelty of this manuscript must be explained simply and clearly in points at the end of the introduction section.

4) The introduction section should be enriched with up-to-date references by adding and citing the latest trends in the various parameters of the battery charger's converter and the filtration of its harmonics. E.g., Reliable and Robust Observer for Simultaneously Estimating State-of-Charge and State-of-Health of LiFePO4 Batteries & Optimal Harmonic Mitigation in Distribution Systems with Inverter Based Distributed Generation & An Effective Bi-Stage Method for Renewable Energy Sources Integration into Unbalanced Distribution Systems & Proposed ANFIS Based Approach for Fault Tracking, Detection, Clearing and Rearrangement for Photovoltaic System.

5) It is mandatory to check all the citing references of equations (1): (11) with the help of the abovementioned suggested papers. In addition, check carefully all the abbreviation definitions, symbols, and standard units in the whole manuscript. I catch some errors and the other symbols were not defined.

6) The resolution and quality of all result figures should be modified; they should be presented as close to the camera-ready format. Also, please don't use the symbol abbreviations on X-Y-axes, they must have the full name with their units. Further, a lot of figures without X-Y axes label, it must write by zooming in on the effective zones.

7) In section 6, the authors should add a new subsection 6.1 for more discussion and show the validation of the experimental work with the simulation ones.

 

8) The conclusion section should be rearranged, and numerical results should be added.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All of my concerns are adjusted, thanks.