Classification of Design Methodologies of Dual Active Bridge-Based Resonant Converters for Battery Energy Storage Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The author has done a lot of research for the analysis and design of dual active Bridges, and the workload is heavy. The classification design of different resonant converters is done, which can be consulted in the previous literature, but there is no in-depth analysis of the same and different points of different resonant converters, and the overall work lacks innovation. The whole work is only theoretical analysis, and there is no simulation and experiment to verify the relevant work.

2. Sen (ωnt) in formula (1) and (2) means sin (ωnt)?

3.  What does“？？”  means in line 63?

Author Response

Thank you for reading the article and your comments. My comments are attached in the document 'Reviewer1.pdf'.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

I have the following remarks about this work:

 

1. It is useful in the last paragraph of the "0. Introduction" section to add information about the existence of the "3. Glossary". However, many things that are not defined in the text need to be added. Also, different symbols denote the same parameter. The opposite is also observed - the same symbol denotes different things. For example on:

- line 108 “Transformer turn ratio, n” and line 230 “N is the transformer ratio”;

- line 119 “Normalized frequency, fn” and line 238 “F is normalized frequency”;

- equations (1), (2) (A1) and (A2) – “n” is used as counter;

- equations (9) – (12) - some parameters/quantities are not defined;

- equation (51) - some parameters/quantities are not defined;

- equations (57), (58), (61), (62) and (65) – “L_r1a”, “Lr2a”, “Lm1a”, “N” and “I_CC” are not defined;

 

2. In places, the text needs to be supplemented or corrected. For example on:

- line 63 „in Section ??“;

- equations (1), (2), (A1) and (A2) – “sen” should be “sin”;

- equation (3) – “L” should be “L_R” or “L_r”

- figure 3, equations (3), (4) and (5) – “I_R” should be “I_r”

- last line of Table 3 "-";

- first row of Table 4 - "ω_s" should be "f_s". The unit is “kHz;”

- line 229 - "ω" should be "ω_s" and "f" respectively "f_s";

- line 506 and line 507 - "equation 19" should be "equation (19)";

- line 575 - "equation 41" should be "equation (41)";

 

3. In my opinion, the determination of losses from conducting is not correct – equations (11) and (A15). Ir,rms is defined for one cycle/period, while switches conduct for less time.

4. The series resonant DC-DC converters have been studied in detail (Time domain analysis, State plane analysis etc.). What is the point of considering methodology based on FHA. In many cases, the same applies to LLC topologies.

5. Overall, the article is interesting and there are many benefits from it.

Author Response

Thank you for reading the article and your comments. My comments are attached in the document 'Reviewer2.pdf'.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is a theoretical one comparing various modulation techniques.  A simulation is made which is not supported by a validation through an experimental realization.

1. It is a general description, but it is not clear why you chose the methodologies discussed in the article. Are there specific criteria you used to select these methodologies?

2. How do parameters such as Q, k and fn influence the performance of the converter in practice? Although these parameters are essential in design, the article does not sufficiently explain how their values ​​influence performance parameters such as power losses or system stability.

3. In the section on resonant element value fluctuations, no clear details are given about the exact impact on converter performance and stability. Please detail how parameter fluctuations affect the stability and performance of the converter.

4. The article focuses on theoretical methodologies. Have you conducted tests to confirm the effectiveness and performance of the methodologies discussed?

5. The limitations of these methodologies in terms of their practical applications are not presented. Can you elaborate on these limitations?

6. The article mentions that many of the converters designed are low power prototypes. What changes are needed to apply these methodologies in the design of high-power converters?

 

Author Response

Thank you for reading the article and your comments. My comments are attached in the document 'Reviewer3.pdf'.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

 

Thank you for submitting your manuscript. for further improvement, please consider the notes below:

Introduction and Literature Review

Enhance Background Information: The introduction provides a general overview but could be enriched with a more detailed background on resonant converters and their significance in BESS, EV, and SST applications. Include recent advancements and challenges in the field to set the context for your review.

Highlight Novelty: Clearly state the unique contribution of your work. Please explain how your classification and analysis fill existing literature gaps and why they are valuable to researchers and practitioners.

Methodology

Clarify Classification Criteria: The criteria used to classify the design methodologies (e.g., modeling and analysis techniques, design objectives, symmetry) should be explicitly defined and justified. Provide clear explanations for each classification category.

Define Parameters and Variables: Introduce and define all key parameters (e.g., quality factor Q, inductor ratio k, normalized frequency fn​) when they first appear. Explain their physical significance and role in converter design.

 

Detailed Analysis

Depth of Comparison: While you have summarized various design methodologies, the manuscript would benefit from a deeper critical analysis. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each methodology, and compare them in terms of performance metrics such as efficiency, complexity, and applicability.

Include Case Studies: Incorporate specific examples or case studies where these design methodologies have been applied. This will provide practical insights and illustrate how different approaches perform in real-world scenarios.

 

Conclusion and Future Work

Strengthen the Conclusion: The conclusion should succinctly summarize the main findings and emphasize the significance of your work. Highlight the key contributions and how they advance the field.

Future Research Directions: Provide specific suggestions for future research based on the gaps and challenges identified in your review.

 

References

Update and Expand References: Many references are outdated. Include more recent publications (from the last five years) to ensure that the review reflects the current state of research.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Improve Grammar and Syntax: While the manuscript is understandable, there are grammatical errors and awkward phrasings that need attention. For example, in the abstract: “Therefore, is the basis for an industrial success or failure” should be “Therefore, it is the basis for industrial success or failure.”

Professional Tone: Adopt a formal academic tone throughout the manuscript. Avoid colloquial expressions and ensure that statements are precise and objective.

Proofreading: Consider having the manuscript professionally edited or thoroughly proofread to enhance readability and clarity.

 

Author Response

Thank you for reading the article and your comments. My comments are attached in the document 'Reviewer4.pdf'.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper can now be published.