High Step-Up Interleaved DC–DC Converter with Voltage-Lift Capacitor and Voltage Multiplier Cell
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere is a large body of research work published on high step-up converters. The proposed converter is a blend of known techniques, which makes the novelty of this topology questionable.
Regarding the ethical considerations:
Authors MUST cite the relevant papers on the interleaved part of the converter as well as the earlier paper that suggested the voltage multiplier cell used.
Regarding the reported results:
Authors MUST provide comparison of their theoretical prediction eq (20), (21)- (25), (31)-(35) to the experimentally measured results.
Therefore, a major revision is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would like to congratulate the authors for a very good work. The paper is very well organized, the content is of the best quality, and the topic is very interesting for the readers. However, there are some topics the authors need to address:
- Please review the English: There are typos along the whole paper. Even if the general understanding of the paper is not compromised, they should be double checked and corrected.
- Error in eq (15)
- Section 4, “Design considerations”: The authors choose a core without presenting the application specifications before. The core selection should not be included in this section, and only present a mathematical design section, as done with the capacitors. A section presenting the core selection or even inductor design for the prototype could be included in the experimental verification. Designs the inductors and select cores for specific prototypes and requirements.
- For the control design section, the methodology is not clear enough, and should be reviewed. The plant is measured and a transfer function derived from curve fitting, but the authors fail to explain what is the actual measured system. Did they build a converters, and performed measurements in the prototype? This should be explained in the very beginning of the section. I also miss an explanation of the control design methodology. Control loop requirements are mentioned, but have not been presented before. The control design section needs to be fully re-organised, starting from the description of the methodology, the requirements, and then describing the design steps.
- The prototype verification section is very good, but I would recommend showing the prototype and lab setup photos before the waveforms are shown. Also, text introduction to the waveforms needs to be included. Divide the waveforms in groups and introduce each group with a little description of what the authors are presenting to the reader. The reader should know what to expect before seeing the waveforms. Not in a full text page in the end, after struggling to understand what the reader is seeing. Reorganize the text to be included between figures, and before each group of figures if possible. In addition, the figure descriptions are too poor. I like the simulation and experimental verification format, with same figure number but (a) and (b). Do not change that.
- I would like to see a lower voltage division in the output voltage in figure 19. Even a small variation in the oscilloscope at 400 V/div can be significant in magnitude. No simulation results for these tests? I would love to see the simulation and experimental comparison also in these tests. Even a magnitude quantification of the Vo variation., simulation and experimental.
- The work done in the experimental verification is of really high quality. It is perfect. However, the text should be reorganized in the presentation. It is a great work poorly presented.
- Curiosity: How is efficiency affected by the change on duty cycle? When the input voltage is changed, how is the efficiency affected? Not mandatory, but very interesting, as the authors claim a reasonable duty can be used with this topology. Efficiency is highly dependent on voltage conversion. I am just curious to see.
Please review the whole paper. The english does not compromise the understanding of the work, but there are typos in the whole paper. Please correct.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors' work is commendable; they have presented the architecture of an interleaved DC-DC converter and demonstrated its advantages over other configurations found in the literature, also providing experimental validation. The article is well-structured, the goal is clearly stated, and the approach is systematic and well-organized. Only the following improvements are suggested for the already high-quality article:
- In the introduction, the first sentence about the "2050 Net-Zero Emissions" can be omitted. The article is highly technical, and the rest of the introduction focuses on specific aspects, making it unnecessary to start with such a broad-context statement.
- In the introduction, in the diagram of Figure 1, the high-voltage DC bus connects electronic products through DC/DC converters—what type of loads are these?
- In section 3.3, the comparison with other converters examined should be expanded and commented on in more detail.
- In the experimental evaluation section, if possible, it would be useful to display oscilloscope-acquired waveforms overlaid with simulated waveforms. This would provide a more immediate graphical comparison, considering that now the sizes of the subfigures (simulation and real data) are different. This could also help reduce the number of figures.
- In the experimental evaluation section, the characteristics of the test bench and instrumentation, and the conducted test description should be provided.
- The conclusion section is brief and appears to be merely a summary of what has been done in the paper. This section should be expanded, highlighting the important findings of the work and how this study contributes to future developments.
- Correct some typos throughout the paper (e.g., line 239: "avhieve" should be "achieve", and others).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
please highlight the revised part of the paper.
The comparison of the simulated vs the experimental is good.
Yet, I cannot see the comparison plot of the theoretical vs the experimental, I've recommended in the previous round.
Please provide.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
