Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

A Comprehensive Analysis of Losses and Efficiency in a Buck ZCS Quasi-Resonant DC/DC Converter

J. Low Power Electron. Appl. 2025, 15(2), 34; https://doi.org/10.3390/jlpea15020034

by Nikolay Hinov^1,*

and Tsvetana Grigorova²

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3:

Nicola Toscani

J. Low Power Electron. Appl. 2025, 15(2), 34; https://doi.org/10.3390/jlpea15020034

Submission received: 25 February 2025 / Revised: 14 May 2025 / Accepted: 30 May 2025 / Published: 2 June 2025

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a thorough analysis of losses and efficiency in a Buck ZCS quasi-resonant DC/DC converter. The study integrates analytical modeling and simulation using PSpice for TI to validate the theoretical findings.

Your results indicate that quasi-resonant converters can outperform conventional PWM converters under certain conditions. Under what operating conditions would PWM still be preferable?
Consider to justify the choice of specific simulation parameters (e.g., resonance frequency, circuit elements).
Consider to include a discussion on uncertainty analysis and error margins.
The novelty of the work is not clearly emphasized in the discussion and conclusion.
How does the proposed methodology compare in accuracy and computational efficiency with other analytical approaches for soft-switching converters?
Can you provide a more detailed derivation of Equation (34) and justify its assumptions, especially regarding the impact of parasitic components?

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank you for your thorough review of our paper (jlpea-3524854) and helpful comments to improve it.

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your results indicate that quasi-resonant converters can outperform conventional PWM converters under certain conditions. Under what operating conditions would PWM still be preferable?

Consider to justify the choice of specific simulation parameters (e.g., resonance frequency, circuit elements).

Consider to include a discussion on uncertainty analysis and error margins.

The novelty of the work is not clearly emphasized in the discussion and conclusion.

How does the proposed methodology compare in accuracy and computational efficiency with other analytical approaches for soft-switching converters?

Can you provide a more detailed derivation of Equation (34) and justify its assumptions, especially regarding the impact of parasitic components?

Comments 1. Your results indicate that quasi-resonant converters can outperform conventional PWM converters under certain conditions. Under what operating conditions would PWM still be preferable?.

Response 1: Thank you for highlighting this. Utilizing soft switching conditions has led to a significant reduction in dynamic losses related to ZCS QRCs (considered in our article). This reduction is particularly important for high-frequency operations. However, literature indicates that, despite the advantages of ZCS QRCs over classical pulse converters that have rectangular current and voltage waveforms, the maximum current and voltage values during the resonant process in QRCs can substantially exceed those found in classical circuits. This raises a question about how to assess the conduction losses between classical buck converters and ZCS QRC buck converters, and how to formulate design recommendations based on this assessment.

Comments 2. Consider to justify the choice of specific simulation parameters (e.g., resonance frequency, circuit elements).

Response 2: T Thank you for pointing this out. We added the used references.

Comments 3. Consider to include a discussion on uncertainty analysis and error margins.

Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding uncertainty analysis and error margins. In this study, our focus was on developing and validating the proposed methodology under ideal conditions. While we recognize the importance of incorporating uncertainty analysis, it was not included in this work as our primary objective was to establish the fundamental principles of the approach. However, we acknowledge that this is an important aspect and will consider it in future studies.

Comments 4. The novelty of the work is not clearly emphasized in the discussion and conclusion.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. The corrections in the abstract and introduction have been made. The article provides a comprehensive analysis of losses and efficiency in Buck L-type Zero-Current Switching (ZCS) quasi-resonant DC/DC converters. The core of the study features a comparative analysis of conduction losses in the switching devices of traditional PWM Buck DC/DC converters and L-type ZCS quasi-resonant Buck DC/DC converters (QRCs) by deriving specific and generalized design equations.

We introduce novel coefficients that facilitate the evaluation of static power losses in classical Buck converter circuits compared to static power losses in L-type ZCS Buck QRCs under identical conditions.

The article also discusses design strategies aimed at minimizing these static losses. Additionally, the analysis examines losses in the resonant tank. Although these losses are generally lower than switching losses, they can significantly affect the overall efficiency of ZCS Buck QRCs, especially under high-frequency operation or light-load conditions.

Comments 5. How does the proposed methodology compare in accuracy and computational efficiency with other analytical approaches for soft-switching converters?

Response 5: We are grateful for the reviewer's suggestion. In this study, our primary objective was to develop and validate the proposed methodology rather than to compare it with other analytical methods. While comparative analysis could offer supplementary insights, existing analytical approaches may differ in assumptions or applicability, making direct comparisons challenging. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the importance of such an analysis and plan to explore it in future work.

Comments 6 Can you provide a more detailed derivation of Equation (34) and justify its assumptions, especially regarding the impact of parasitic components?

Response 6: The equation (34) corresponds to reference [10] (Line 243). In a full-wave mode, the circuit's ability to regulate output voltage is relatively insensitive to load variations because the energy dynamics of the tank circuit self-adjust with loads changing, or the full-wave mode naturally balances energy transfer between the source and load (the excess resonant tank energy is returned to the input voltage source through Q1 body diode).

When losses are present, energy dissipates throughout the resonant stage, reducing the amount of total tank energy that is returned to the input voltage source. Additionally, the resonant inductor current takes the form of a sinusoidal waveform with an exponentially decaying envelope. Meanwhile, the peak voltage of the resonant capacitor decreases compared to the ideal case. Since less energy is returned to the source, the capacitor takes longer to discharge, resulting in a larger area under its voltage waveform. Because the output voltage is determined by the average value of the resonant capacitor voltage and the switching period remains unchanged, the output voltage increases in the presence of losses. The efficiency, which always decreases with increasing losses, is much more sensitive to load variations in full-wave mode than in half-wave mode.

Thank you very much for your remarks and comments. They were very useful for me to emphasize the main tasks and contributions of the manuscript, and also to focus the attention of the readers on the new and unique elements.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors must present a comparison plot of the predicted loss according to their proposed model vs. the experimentally measured results.

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank you for your thorough review of our paper (jlpea-3524854) and helpful comments to improve it.

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors must present a comparison plot of the predicted loss according to their proposed model vs. the experimentally measured results.

Authors must present a comparison plot of the predicted loss according to their proposed model vs. the experimentally measured results.

Comments 1 Authors must present a comparison plot of the predicted loss according to their proposed model vs. the experimentally measured results.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment. With the development of modeling and simulation environments, we have sufficient reason to assume that our results are correct. On the other hand, our main task is identifying appropriate operating modes, which will be the subject of further in-depth study. The practical implementation of the converter will also be the subject of further research, along with the comparison between the analytical, simulation, and experimental results.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I read carefully your manuscript, but I think it is not ready for acceptance. Indeed, it has some weaknesses that are not admissible in journal papers.

The main one is that, even though your analysis is of some interest, the topic is not new per se and nor abstract or introduction sufficiently highlights the novelty of your research. The authors only claimed that “some novel coefficients are introduced” in the abstract, without specifying what they represent and why should they be useful. Thus, based on these two sections, your work seems a mere analytical analysis of the results proposed in “Fundamentals of power electronics” by Erickson and Maksimovic [10] and “Power Electronics” by Mohan, Undeland and Robbins [8] since no novelty is highlighted.

Similarly, Conclusion is not referring to the “new coefficients” mentioned in the abstract: then, what is the purpose of your paper, what is the new here and how the results of your computation should be relevant for a potential reader of your manuscript?

What’s more, this paper shows a long analytical analysis that starts from the procedure shown in [10], Chapter 20, and only a short section is devoted to validation, which is based on simulation. Comparison between analytical approximation and simulation is made through some figures of merit for some waveforms, but experimental tests would be essential for increasing the quality of the manuscript.

Finally, a list of other required action are reported:

The expression “Pspice for TI” appears in the abstract, but its meaning is not clear. Is it a specific tool like https://www.ti.com/tool/PSPICE-FOR-TI? Or are you referring to something else? A reference or further explanations are required.
Lines 37-38 are not reporting a logical consequence of the previous sentence: indeed, there is no explicit reference to any class of DC/DC converters before.
Line 59 prepares the reader for a comparison in the following part of Introduction; however, only a description of simulation strategies and modeling approaches is listed, without any comparison between them.
Suddenly, the authors write of a “presented model” in line 102, but it is not clear to what they refer.
In general, the introduction should be rephrased, since it does not seem homogeneous and easy to follow from a logical point of view, resulting in a list of references, aims and useful characteristics of resonant converters that seem not to have much in common with each other.
The meaning of label vGQ1 shown in Figure 3 (gate signal I suppose) is never specified in the text
Figure 3 highlights theta 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Ts, but then (21) defines Ts only using theta 1, 2, 3. This inconsistency must be clarified
The authors speak of “modes” in Section 2 when referring to the angular intervals used in the analysis, but it would be better using another expression. Typically, the word “mode” is used for complete operation of a converter leading to a specific steady state working points.
In some parts of the paper the authors say that “all the switching devices are activated” (for both MOSFETs and diodes); anyway, diodes naturally turn on and off based on the applied voltage and/or current without any activation signal. I suggest using a different word for diodes to avoid misinterpretations.
In line 268 the authors say that the simplification sin(x) with x leads to relative errors up to 24 %, but then the text does not clearly state why the solutions (25) and (26) are still based on the same approximation. How an error reaching 24 % may be acceptable?
Caption is missing for Table 1
Krms_half is introduced in line 322 to allow a more in-depth analysis in the static losses in the MOSFETS, but not sufficient explanations are then reported: why not using the amplitudes of ripples for example?
Equation (58) is overlapped with the text and cannot be read
How is the efficiency estimated in simulation in Section 4? Are you making a power balance between input and output or are you computing it through the same equations shown previously?
In the reference list, double enumeration is shown from [25] to [34]. In the same part of reference list, some papers are cited for the second time. Please remove duplicates.
Some references are not available for download (for example [41]). Please, provide alternative citations.

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank you for your thorough review of our paper (jlpea-3524854) and helpful comments to improve it.

Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I read carefully your manuscript, but I think it is not ready for acceptance. Indeed, it has some weaknesses that are not admissible in journal papers.

Finally, a list of other required action are reported:

The expression “Pspice for TI” appears in the abstract, but its meaning is not clear. Is it a specific tool like https://www.ti.com/tool/PSPICE-FOR-TI? Or are you referring to something else? A reference or further explanations are required.

Lines 37-38 are not reporting a logical consequence of the previous sentence: indeed, there is no explicit reference to any class of DC/DC converters before.

Line 59 prepares the reader for a comparison in the following part of Introduction; however, only a description of simulation strategies and modeling approaches is listed, without any comparison between them.

Suddenly, the authors write of a “presented model” in line 102, but it is not clear to what they refer.

In general, the introduction should be rephrased, since it does not seem homogeneous and easy to follow from a logical point of view, resulting in a list of references, aims and useful characteristics of resonant converters that seem not to have much in common with each other.

The meaning of label vGQ1 shown in Figure 3 (gate signal I suppose) is never specified in the text

Figure 3 highlights theta 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Ts, but then (21) defines Ts only using theta 1, 2, 3. This inconsistency must be clarified

The authors speak of “modes” in Section 2 when referring to the angular intervals used in the analysis, but it would be better using another expression. Typically, the word “mode” is used for complete operation of a converter leading to a specific steady state working points.

In some parts of the paper the authors say that “all the switching devices are activated” (for both MOSFETs and diodes); anyway, diodes naturally turn on and off based on the applied voltage and/or current without any activation signal. I suggest using a different word for diodes to avoid misinterpretations.

In line 268 the authors say that the simplification sin(x) with x leads to relative errors up to 24 %, but then the text does not clearly state why the solutions (25) and (26) are still based on the same approximation. How an error reaching 24 % may be acceptable?

Caption is missing for Table 1

Krms_half is introduced in line 322 to allow a more in-depth analysis in the static losses in the MOSFETS, but not sufficient explanations are then reported: why not using the amplitudes of ripples for example?

Equation (58) is overlapped with the text and cannot be read

How is the efficiency estimated in simulation in Section 4? Are you making a power balance between input and output or are you computing it through the same equations shown previously?

In the reference list, double enumeration is shown from [25] to [34]. In the same part of reference list, some papers are cited for the second time. Please remove duplicates.

Some references are not available for download (for example [41]). Please, provide alternative citations.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We also greatly appreciate for the complimentary comments and suggestions.

Please find a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s concerns. We hope that you find our responses satisfactory and that the manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

Comments 1. Dear authors,

I read carefully your manuscript, but I think it is not ready for acceptance. Indeed, it has some weaknesses that are not admissible in journal papers.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for their insightful comments. To address the concern about the novelty of the manuscript, we have revised the abstract, introduction, and conclusion to clearly highlight the introduction and purpose of novel analytical coefficients. These coefficients enable a generalized estimation of static power losses, applicable to both PWM and ZCS Buck converters under identical operating conditions, which has not been systematically addressed in the existing literature. Furthermore, we emphasize how these coefficients can serve as design tools for optimizing converter performance. We also acknowledge the lack of experimental validation and have noted it as future work.

Below are the changes as follows:

- Abstract – adding clarity on new coefficients:

Original:

The novel coefficients are introduced, which allow us to evaluate the static power losses...

Proposed revision:

This paper introduces novel analytical coefficients that quantify the static conduction losses in both conventional PWM Buck converters and L-type ZCS Buck quasi-resonant converters under identical conditions. These coefficients enable generalized and normalized estimation of losses independent of specific component values, facilitating easier design optimization and comparative evaluation across topologies.

- Introduction - enhancing contribution and novelty. Added the following paragraph at the end of the introduction:

Although the fundamental operating principles of ZCS quasi-resonant converters have been studied previously, there is limited work focused on the analytical quantification and comparison of static conduction losses between classical PWM and L-type ZCS QRCs. The novelty of this paper lies in the derivation and application of dimensionless coefficients that provide a universal approach to loss estimation. Unlike existing literature, which relies on case-specific simulations or empirical data, the proposed methodology allows theoretical and simulation-based assessment across varying load and frequency conditions.

- Conclusion - a clear reference to the new coefficients and their value

Original:

The present paper focuses on the model-based performance evaluation of L-type ZCS Buck QRC...

Supplement:

The main contribution of the study is the derivation of normalized coefficients that serve as predictive indicators for static conduction losses in both traditional and quasi-resonant topologies. These coefficients can be used as a design tool to select optimal parameters that minimize losses without the need for exhaustive simulations or empirical tuning. Thus, the study offers both a theoretical framework and a practical method applicable in early design phases.

- For the simulation part – a short comment on why an experiment is not included

A sentence has been added to section 4:

While this work focuses on analytical and simulation-based validation, future work will extend the analysis to include experimental validation using laboratory prototypes to further strengthen the applicability of the proposed methodology.

Comments 2.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. The corrections have been made.

Comments 3. Lines 37-38 are not reporting a logical consequence of the previous sentence: indeed, there is no explicit reference to any class of DC/DC converters before.

Response 3: We fully agree with this comment. The corrections have been made.

Comments 4. Line 59 prepares the reader for a comparison in the following part of Introduction; however, only a description of simulation strategies and modeling approaches is listed, without any comparison between them.

Response 4: We fully agree with this comment. The corrections have been made.

Comments 5. Suddenly, the authors write of a “presented model” in line 102, but it is not clear to what they refer.

Response 5: We agree with this comment. The introduction has been revised.

Comments 6. In general, the introduction should be rephrased, since it does not seem homogeneous and easy to follow from a logical point of view, resulting in a list of references, aims and useful characteristics of resonant converters that seem not to have much in common with each other.

Response 6: We agree with this comment. The abstract and introduction have been revised and updated.

Comments 7. The meaning of label vGQ1 shown in Figure 3 (gate signal I suppose) is never specified in the text.

Response 7: We fully agree with this comment. The corrections have been made.

Comments 8. Figure 3 highlights theta 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Ts, but then (21) defines Ts only using theta 1, 2, 3. This inconsistency must be clarified.

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. Figure 3 has been edited.

Comments 9. The authors speak of “modes” in Section 2 when referring to the angular intervals used in the analysis, but it would be better using another expression. Typically, the word “mode” is used for complete operation of a converter leading to a specific steady state working points.

Response 9: Thank you for your comment. We have removed the use of “modes” from the text.

Comments 10. In some parts of the paper the authors say that “all the switching devices are activated” (for both MOSFETs and diodes); anyway, diodes naturally turn on and off based on the applied voltage and/or current without any activation signal. I suggest using a different word for diodes to avoid misinterpretations.

Response 10: We would like to express our sincere apologies, but we were unable to locate this specific wording in the text. It is possible that we misinterpreted the subtext of the remark and failed to decipher it correctly.

Comments 11. In line 268 the authors say that the simplification sin(x) with x leads to relative errors up to 24 %, but then the text does not clearly state why the solutions (25) and (26) are still based on the same approximation. How an error reaching 24 % may be acceptable?

Response 11: Thank you for your comment. We have added clarifications. We explain the analysis in [32]. The error is only significant for large values of the ratio M/R’0.

Comments 12. Caption is missing for Table 1.

Response 12: Thank you for your comment. We agree. The caption has been added.

Comments 13. Krms_half is introduced in line 322 to allow a more in-depth analysis in the static losses in the MOSFETS, but not sufficient explanations are then reported: why not using the amplitudes of ripples for example?

Response 13: During the analytical study, we supposed that all switching devices were ideal and that the impact of the output current ripple was negligible. These conditions concern both circuits: classical PWM buck converter and L-type ZSC buck QRCs. This assumption was made on the basis that the output filter and load operation were equivalent to a constant current source with a value equal to the steady-state output current. Then, the accuracy of the analytical relationships was evaluated through a simulation study, which assess the influence of the variable current component of the inductor output filter on the shape of the current and voltage curves during the resonant cycle.

Comments 14. Equation (58) is overlapped with the text and cannot be read.

Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. The corrections have been made.

Comments 15. How is the efficiency estimated in simulation in Section 4? Are you making a power balance between input and output or are you computing it through the same equations shown previously?

Response 15: Thank you for the question. We use the equations shown previously.

Comments 16. In the reference list, double enumeration is shown from [25] to [34]. In the same part of reference list, some papers are cited for the second time. Please remove duplicates.

Response 16: Thank you for pointing this out. The corrections have been made.

Comments 17. Some references are not available for download (for example [41]). Please, provide alternative citations.

Response 17: This is the Persistent link, corresponds to this reference (after revisions [32]). In this context, we believe that a significant portion of the literature we use is open access, and one of our goals in publishing in an open access journal is to make our research accessible to all readers, thereby filling some of the gaps in the subject matter.

Thank you very much for your careful and thorough reading of our manuscript. Thank you very much for your remarks and comments. They were very useful for me to emphasize the main tasks and contributions of the manuscript, and also to focus the readers attention on the new and unique elements.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been well reviewed and the author has made appropriate and corrections. I have no further comments or suggestions. Thank the author for their efforts and contributions to this research.

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank you for your thorough review of our paper (jlpea-3524854) and helpful comments to improve it.

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been well reviewed and the author has made appropriate and corrections. I have no further comments or suggestions. Thank the author for their efforts and contributions to this research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, you've put a substantial effort into deriving your theoretical predictions on the losses of the QR converter. You also did a very good job in composing this paper. I also note the heavy revision you've given to the paper.

However, nowhere you show any comparison with experimental results.

Regretfully, this makes all your efforts to be spent in vain.

The burden of proof (that your theory is correct) is upon you and you MUST provide clear comparison plots of your theoretical predictions vs the measured results. Tables 2, and 3 are not nearly enough.

Some authors from post-Soviet countries may believe that writing "purely theoretical " papers is ok, but such an approach is not acceptable in our field of science by respectable publishers such as MDPI, IEEE or IET.

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank you for your thorough review of our paper (jlpea-3524854) and helpful comments to improve it.

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

However, nowhere you show any comparison with experimental results.

Regretfully, this makes all your efforts to be spent in vain.

Comments 1 Dear authors, you've put a substantial effort into deriving your theoretical predictions on the losses of the QR converter. You also did a very good job in composing this paper. I also note the heavy revision you've given to the paper.

Response 1: We sincerely thank you for your positive and encouraging feedback. We highly appreciate your acknowledgment of the theoretical work on the QR converter losses and the efforts put into revising the manuscript. Your recognition of our work motivates us to continue improving both the clarity and depth of our research.

Comments 2 However, nowhere you show any comparison with experimental results.

Regretfully, this makes all your efforts to be spent in vain.

Response 2: Thank you for this important remark and we fully recognize the need to validate our theoretical predictions through experimental comparison. In response, we have revised the manuscript to include measurements on a laboratory sample and thus allow a comparison between the theoretical and measured results. These additions aim to provide the necessary evidence to support the validity of our theoretical model. We hope that this will address your concern and enhance the overall contribution of the article.

Comments 3 Some authors from post-Soviet countries may believe that writing "purely theoretical " papers is ok, but such an approach is not acceptable in our field of science by respectable publishers such as MDPI, IEEE or IET.

Response 3: We appreciate your candid feedback and fully understand the standards upheld by leading journals such as MDPI, IEEE, and IET. We agree that theoretical contributions must be confirmed by experimental verification to be impactful and credible. In this revised version of the manuscript, we have addressed this by including a comparison between our theoretical predictions and experimental results, as presented in the revised version of the manuscript. We believe that this addition brings our work in line with the expectations of the scientific community and the standards of respected publishers.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

I really appreciated your efforts in improving the quality of your manuscript. Indeed, I think you clarified many important points in the text and now the flow of information and the main steps behind your reserach are well defined for readers.

I still warmly sugegst you to try to validate your results versus an experimental campaign to definitely reach high quality for your paper. I know that SPICE is accounting for losses much better than PLECS and Simulink, but it is also true that it is a software based on behavioural model provided by manufacturers. Therefore, experimental tests may help you verify losses in a wider range of working points.

I also noticed that you deciced to delete the part in the introduction about simulation tools. Why didn't you rephrase those sentences? That overview was of some interest.

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank you for your thorough review of our paper (jlpea-3524854) and helpful comments to improve it.

Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

I also noticed that you deciced to delete the part in the introduction about simulation tools. Why didn't you rephrase those sentences? That overview was of some interest.

Comments 1. I really appreciated your efforts in improving the quality of your manuscript. Indeed, I think you clarified many important points in the text and now the flow of information and the main steps behind your reserach are well defined for readers.

Response 1: We sincerely thank you for your kind words and appreciation of the improvements made to the manuscript. We are glad that the revised structure and clarifications have enhanced the flow of information and made the key steps of our research clearer for the readers. Your feedback was instrumental in guiding these improvements, and we are grateful for your support throughout the review process.

Comments 2. I still warmly sugegst you to try to validate your results versus an experimental campaign to definitely reach high quality for your paper. I know that SPICE is accounting for losses much better than PLECS and Simulink, but it is also true that it is a software based on behavioural model provided by manufacturers. Therefore, experimental tests may help you verify losses in a wider range of working points.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your thoughtful suggestion. We fully agree that experimental validation over a wider range of operating points would significantly improve the quality and applicability of our work. While we acknowledge the advantages and limitations of simulation tools such as SPICE, PLECS, and Simulink, we also realize that behavioral models may not fully capture all real-world effects, especially under varying conditions. In this regard, results from bench-scale experiments have been added to the revised version of the manuscript to validate the simulation models.

Comments 3. I also noticed that you deciced to delete the part in the introduction about simulation tools. Why didn't you rephrase those sentences? That overview was of some interest.

Response 3: Thank you for your observation. You are absolutely right—the overview of simulation tools in the introduction did provide useful context. We initially removed that part to streamline the introduction and focus more directly on the motivation and objectives of our study. However, based on your valuable suggestion, we have reintroduced a rephrased and more concise version of that overview to preserve its informative value while maintaining the improved structure of the introduction. We believe this restores the balance between clarity and completeness.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper authors chose a difficult topic to deal with and, thus, must face many challenges.

The major theoretical weakness of the paper is that it does not address the losses of the inductive devices. Please consider.

Please provide simulation results in same format as the experimental results.

I mean, so that the traces in Fig. 17(a) will match the traces in Fig 17 (b)

(also Fig 18(a) - Fig 18 (b) and Fig 19(a) - Fig 19 (b) )

Please add to Table 2 the predicted (calculated) values and state in the text by which formula those were calculated.

Please add a comparison plot of the predicted (calculated) vs the measured loss and and state in the caption by which formula those were calculated.

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank you for your thorough review of our paper (jlpea-3524854) and helpful comments to improve it.

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper authors chose a difficult topic to deal with and, thus, must face many challenges.

The major theoretical weakness of the paper is that it does not address the losses of the inductive devices. Please consider.

Please provide simulation results in same format as the experimental results.

I mean, so that the traces in Fig. 17(a) will match the traces in Fig 17 (b)

(also Fig 18(a) - Fig 18 (b) and Fig 19(a) - Fig 19 (b) )

Please add to Table 2 the predicted (calculated) values and state in the text by which formula those were calculated.

Please add a comparison plot of the predicted (calculated) vs the measured loss and and state in the caption by which formula those were calculated.

Comments 1 The major theoretical weakness of the paper is that it does not address the losses of the inductive devices. Please consider.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment. In Section 3, the losses in resonant inductance and resonant capacitance are investigated. The concept of the study is to focus on conduction losses in semiconductor switching devices and resonant losses. We will use your comment as a guideline for further research.

Comments 2 Please provide simulation results in same format as the experimental results.

I mean, so that the traces in Fig. 17(a) will match the traces in Fig 17 (b)

(also Fig 18(a) - Fig 18 (b) and Fig 19(a) - Fig 19 (b) ).

Response 2: Thanks for the helpful comment. We agree that it is important to present simulation results in the same format as experimental results so that they can be directly compared. Corresponding corrections have been made.

Comments 3 Please add a comparison plot of the predicted (calculated) vs the measured loss and and state in the caption by which formula those were calculated.

Response 3: Thanks for the useful comment. We agree that the comparison between predicted (calculated) and measured losses will be useful for verifying the accuracy of the proposed models and for comparing the results. The appropriate corrections have been made.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

the quality of your paper increased further by including the experimental results in Section 4. Now I believe your manuscript is ready for publication. I only noticed some issues between page 23 and 25, where blank spaces are appearing instead of text and figures.

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank you for your thorough review of our paper (jlpea-3524854) and helpful comments to improve it.

Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Comments 1. Dear authors,

Response 1: Thank you for the positive assessment of the article and for the remark regarding the blank spaces between pages 23 and 25. I am glad that the addition of experimental results has improved the quality of the article and that it now seems ready for publication. The corresponding corrections have been made.

Article Menu

A Comprehensive Analysis of Losses and Efficiency in a Buck ZCS Quasi-Resonant DC/DC Converter

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI