High Efficiency Converters Based on Modular Partial Power Processing for Fully Electric Maritime Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The submitted article presents the design of a HESS based on modular partial pwoer converters for High Energy and High Power operations. The manuscript is overall well written and rather interesting. English level is rather good. Major comment: - It is not clear what control strategy what used for the control of DAB in section 4. Note that PSM is a modulation strategy, not a control strategy. How was the DAB phase shift calculated? See [Generalized Super-Twisting control of a Dual Active Bridge for More Electric Aircraft] for an example of DAB control Minor comment: - Section 3 and 4 have the same name, please fix it.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of this paper is interesting. However, the novelties and main contributions are not very clear. Please clarify them in the Introduction. The control method used for DAB is not well presented, please include the complete control block diagram in the revised paper. Besides, it is better to show the dynamic performance of the converter (at least in simulation). Furthermore, please do literature reviews on cutting-edge power converters, such as dickson converters, SIMO converters (Y. Qin, Y. Yang, S. Li, Y. Huang, S. -C. Tan and S. Y. Hui, "A High-Efficiency DC/DC Converter for High-Voltage-Gain, High-Current Applications," in IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 2812-2823, Sept. 2020, doi: 10.1109/JESTPE.2019.2908416.), etc.

Some grammar errors can found. Please correct them

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Summary:

The paper presents an approach for analyzing the benefits of partial power processing (PPP) based converters in fully electric maritime applications. The authors propose a modular and scalable system using series-connected partial power converters. They address overvoltage issues resulting from series-connected module failure and perform reliability analysis considering independent and identical failure probabilities of battery system components. Additionally, the authors present experimental results of a 3 kW prototype demonstrating high efficiency, with a peak efficiency of 99.36%.

Overall Evaluation:

The paper addresses an important topic in the electrification of the maritime sector and offers valuable insights into the use of modular partial power processing converters. The work is well-structured and provides a comprehensive analysis of the proposed system. However, there are some areas that require further clarification and improvement. Detailed comments and suggestions are provided below.

Detailed Comments:

 

Introduction:

a. It would be helpful to provide a brief background on the current challenges and limitations of fully electric maritime applications, particularly in relation to power conversion and energy storage systems.

b. The research objective and novelty of the proposed approach should be clearly stated at the end of the introduction section.

Methodology:

a. Provide more details on the specific use case for the HESS sizing and hybridization analysis mentioned in Section 2.

b. Elaborate on the selection criteria for the number of modules in series, as well as the reliability analysis of series and parallel connection configurations.

c. Explain the rationale behind the choice of a DAB (Dual Active Bridge) for the modular PPC design and its advantages over alternative topologies.

d. Include relevant equations or mathematical models to support the sizing methodology and reliability analysis.

Experimental Results:

a. Provide a more comprehensive discussion of the experimental setup, including the test conditions, measurement equipment, and any specific considerations for the 3 kW PPC prototype.

b. Include a comparison of the experimental results with existing converter technologies or similar studies to highlight the contribution and significance of the achieved peak efficiency of 99.36%.

Conclusion:

a. Emphasize the practical implications and potential impact of the presented research on the electrification of maritime applications.

b. Consider discussing future research directions and potential challenges in implementing the proposed modular PPC system.

Additional Suggestions:

1. Consider including figures or diagrams to illustrate the proposed modular PPC system, its components, and the series and parallel connection configurations.

2. Clarify the definition and distinction between HE (High Energy) and HP (High Power) modules.

3. Provide a brief overview of the reliability analysis methodology used for the battery system components, highlighting any assumptions made.

4. It would be beneficial to include a discussion on the practical feasibility, cost implications, and scalability of the proposed modular PPC system.

5. Ensure consistency in referencing figures and equations throughout the paper.

6. Proofread the manuscript for grammatical and typographical errors.

 

Minor

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this paper, a series converter method is proposed to solve the overvoltage problem, and the practicability of the design idea is fully verified through theoretical analysis and simulation experiment, which is of revelatory significance for the subsequent research. However, some details of this paper need attention, and the following suggestions are put forward:

 

1. Ask the author to explain the data source in Figure 4.

2. In the article, the author states that when buck-boost circuits are used, the selection effect of ISOP and IPOS architecture is not obvious, so will the system be easier when the up-and-down circuit is applied? Please analyze.

3. The drawing of flowchart in FIG. 10 is too tedious, so the author is requested to simplify the analysis.

4. The author is requested to supplement the simulation overall device model diagram.

5. Please mark the names of the parts in Figure 16(b).

6. The analysis of experimental conclusions is too simple, please add.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all my concerns properly. 

The quality of English language is better now.

Author Response

Dear Revisor,

The authors would like to thank the comments, the suggestions and the effort made by the reviewer.

Best regards,

Jon Anzola, Erik Garayalde, June Urkizu, Argiñe Alacano and Ramon Lopez-Erauskin

Reviewer 3 Report

All the suggestions given in the review have been incorporated by the authors. The paper can be accepted in its present form.

Minor corrections may be required.

Author Response

Dear Revisor,

The authors would like to thank the comments, the suggestions and the effort made by the reviewer.

Best regards,

Jon Anzola, Erik Garayalde, June Urkizu, Argiñe Alacano and Ramon Lopez-Erauskin

Reviewer 4 Report

The author has carefully revised the issues raised by the review comments, but there are also some details that need to be corrected:

 

1. Please explain the source of data in Table 4.

2. The flow chart in Figure 11 indicates confusion, and the author should simplify the analysis.

3. The layout of the table pictures in the paper is confused, please check and modify the author.

4. Please supplement the overall device diagram of the simulation for easy understanding.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf