Fuzzy Battery Manager: Charging and Balancing Rechargeable Battery Cells with Fuzzy Logic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn page 2 change "Do to the non-ideal nature of physical rechargeable" to "Due to the non-ideal nature of physical rechargeable."
The title of section 2 "FUZZY APPROACH VERSE TRADITIONAL APPROACH," should be corrected to "FUZZY APPROACH VERSUS TRADITIONAL APPROACH."
The fuzzy rules can be better represented using a table or a matrix, commonly known as fuzzy associatuve memory instead of your figure 8.
Your figures are labeled as Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and so on. Therefore, when referring to a figure in the text, please use Fig. 1 instead of figure 1.
If your platform allows, you could compare your results with a different technique, such as PID control to provide a stronger contrast.
I would also like to know how you define your membership functions, I suggest using clustering or an adaptive fuzzy model to enhance your system's performance.
Finally, stability is not easy to demonstrate with Mamdani fuzzy systems However, you could show that in each case, temperature and current remain within specific limits, which would help support the stability of your approach.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are mistakes in the words used, like "do" instead of "due" or "verse" instead of "versus"
Author Response
In page 2 change "Do to the non-ideal nature of physical rechargeable" to "Due to the non-ideal nature of physical rechargeable."
Fixed.
The title of section 2 "FUZZY APPROACH VERSE TRADITIONAL APPROACH," should be corrected to "FUZZY APPROACH VERSUS TRADITIONAL APPROACH."
Fixed.
The fuzzy rules can be better represented using a table or a matrix, commonly known as fuzzy associative memory instead of your figure 8.
Figure 1 was taken from Matlab.
Your figures are labeled as Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and so on. Therefore, when referring to a figure in the text, please use Fig. 1 instead of figure 1.
Fixed.
If your platform allows, you could compare your results with a different technique, such as PID control to provide a stronger contrast.
The paper goal is to present a new hardware design that utilizes a fuzzy inference system to charge and balance two battery cells in series.
I would also like to know how you define your membership functions, I suggest using clustering or an adaptive fuzzy model to enhance your system's performance.
We used membership functions that were suggested by other authors and references were cited for that.
Finally, stability is not easy to demonstrate with Mamdani fuzzy systems However, you could show that in each case, temperature and current remain within specific limits, which would help support the stability of your approach.
The presented Fuzzy Battery Manager System (BMS) accomplished its purpose of charging and balancing rechargeable cells with high adaptability for different battery chemistries by simply adjusting membership functions. It has been shown to be stable and to work on real hardware as shown in figures 19 and 20.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors-
The authors present the article entitled “Fuzzy Battery Manager: Charging and Balancing Rechargeable Battery Cells with Fuzzy Logic”
The article presents the following concerns:
- Add hyperlinks to tables, figures, and references.
- Abstract section: Please provide quantitative values in order to highlight the main results of the work.
- Page 2 left column: The citations are repetitive. For example, citation [6] is cited 4 times in a row in two different paragraphs. It is suggested that you can summarize the information from the work related to [6] and only cite it once. The same in a previous paragraph with citation [8].
- At the end of the Introduction section, authors are suggested to mention the main contributions of the work.
- It is recommended that section "III. THE NEW PROPOSED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS" be integrated as a subsection of section "IV. THE NEW PROPOSED SYSTEM DESIGN"
- It is recommended that authors provide a flow chart that graphically explains the methodology used to develop the proposal in the section “THE NEW PROPOSED SYSTEM DESIGN”.
- Section “THE NEW PROPOSED SYSTEM TESTING” should be named “Results”.
- Please provide details about the validation of the proposed system in order to know the performance of your model.
- It is suggested that the authors provide a Discussion section before the Conclusion section. In the new Discussion section, please provide an interpretation of the results presented in the document.
- Also, please add a table that compares the main contributions of the work vs the already reported in literature in order to highlight the novelty of the work at the end of the new Discussion section.
- My main concern is about the bibliography presented in the paper. As it stands, it presents 8 conference papers and 4 webpage papers out of 15 references consulted. This makes the novelty of the work unclear. It is suggested that the authors can improve the bibliography by submitting papers in JCR journals not older than 5 years. This will help to make a significant improvement to the Introduction and help to identify the novelty of the work.
Misspellings:
- page 6: “shown in figure 15…” Figure goes with capital letters
- page 8: “For testing on the physical system, breakpoints were set to detect if a cell was overcharged” rewrite for clarity “Breakpoints were set for testing on the physical system to detect if a cell was overcharged”
- page 8: “so there was a large balancing…” should be rewritten by “ had a large balancing”
Author Response
Abstract section: Please provide quantitative values in order to highlight the main results of the work.
The paper goal is to present a new hardware design that utilizes a fuzzy inference system to charge and balance two battery cells in series.
Page 2 left column: The citations are repetitive. For example, citation [6] is cited 4 times in a row in two different paragraphs. It is suggested that you can summarize the information from the work related to [6] and only cite it once. The same in a previous paragraph with citation [8].
The left column is there. The reference repetition was necessary in the paragraph.
At the end of the Introduction section, authors are suggested to mention the main contributions of the work.
The contributions are now mentioned in at the end of the introduction section.
It is recommended that section "III. THE NEW PROPOSED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS" be integrated as a subsection of section "IV. THE NEW PROPOSED SYSTEM DESIGN"
We are following the water fall software methodology in the way we are presenting our paper.
It is recommended that authors provide a flow chart that graphically explains the methodology used to develop the proposal in the section “THE NEW PROPOSED SYSTEM DESIGN”.
Our design follows the Mamdani design method.
Section “THE NEW PROPOSED SYSTEM TESTING” should be named “Results”.
Fixed.
Please provide details about the validation of the proposed system in order to know the performance of your model.
The paper goal is to present a new hardware design that utilizes a fuzzy inference system to charge and balance two battery cells in series. It has been shown to be stable and to work on real hardware as shown in figures 19 and 20.
It is suggested that the authors provide a Discussion section before the Conclusion section. In the new Discussion section, please provide an interpretation of the results presented in the document.
A new section on discussion was added.
Also, please add a table that compares the main contributions of the work vs the already reported in literature in order to highlight the novelty of the work at the end of the new Discussion section.
The contribution of the paper has been reported in the discussion as well as the conclusion sections.
My main concern is about the bibliography presented in the paper. As it stands, it presents 8 conference papers and 4 webpage papers out of 15 references consulted. This makes the novelty of the work unclear. It is suggested that the authors can improve the bibliography by submitting papers in JCR journals not older than 5 years. This will help to make a significant improvement to the Introduction and help to identify the novelty of the work.
The reference section includes all the references that we were able to cite.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors proposed a Fuzzy Battery Manager for the charging and balancing of a battery. The hardware was realized on a microcontroller and a battery charging IC. The novelty of the paper was clear. The paper had sufficient material in terms of novelty and technical quality that warrant publication in this journal. However, the content and format of the paper were not valued to be documented now. The detailed suggestions and advices are as follows:
- The abstract should be rewritten. Most of the content are about the research background, which should be moved into the introduction section. The detailed method and results should be presented in the abstract.
- Pay attention to the superscript and subscript, for example the number 4 should be the subscript for LiFePO4.
- The indexed content for references [6], [7] and [8] should be shorten. It is better to present the conclusion from there references, instead of introducing the detail process as a paragraph.
- The section sequence number should be consistent for the paper, Roman numerals or Arabic numerals.
- Figure 1 should be revised. The label critical high and high can not be distinguished between each other.
- Figure 8 should be moved into the attachment.
- It should be T=25℃ instead of T=25C.
- The communication bus should be I2C instead of i2c.
- Figure 17 should be revised also. It was not a graph.
- The conclusion should be revised also. It was too simple to express the research results. Some quantitative conclusion can be added.
Author Response
The authors proposed a Fuzzy Battery Manager for the charging and balancing of a battery. The hardware was realized on a microcontroller and a battery charging IC. The novelty of the paper was clear. The paper had sufficient material in terms of novelty and technical quality that warrant publication in this journal. However, the content and format of the paper were not valued to be documented now. The detailed suggestions and advices are as follows:
The abstract should be rewritten. Most of the content are about the research background, which should be moved into the introduction section. The detailed method and results should be presented in the abstract.
The abstract has been modified.
Pay attention to the superscript and subscript, for example the number 4 should be the subscript for LiFePO4.
Fixed.
The indexed content for references [6], [7] and [8] should be shorten. It is better to present the conclusion from there references, instead of introducing the detail process as a paragraph.
The authors choose that since it did enhance the logic behind the new proposed hardware system.
The section sequence number should be consistent for the paper, Roman numerals or Arabic numerals.
Fixed.
Figure 1 should be revised. The label critical high and high cannot be distinguished between each other.
Figure 8 should be moved into the attachment.
Since the paper length was not too long the authors choose to include the figure within the text of the paper.
It should be T=25℃ instead of T=25C.
Fixed.
The communication bus should be I2C instead of i2c.
Fixed.
Figure 17 should be revised also. It was not a graph.
Fixed.
The conclusion should be revised also. It was too simple to express the research results. Some quantitative conclusion can be added.
A new section on discussion was added and conclusion was also edited.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author described a battery charging and balancing by the testing of a fuzzy battery manager, however, it is hard to find out the key novelty and results in this manuscript. Furthermore, these figures are not so clear that I cannot understand some mechanism as well. I regret to say it could not be accepted in this Journal.
Author Response
The author described a battery charging and balancing by the testing of a fuzzy battery manager, however, it is hard to find out the key novelty and results in this manuscript. Furthermore, these figures are not so clear that I cannot understand some mechanism as well. I regret to say it could not be accepted in this Journal.
We do not agree with the reviewer’s decision.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting research article that successfully integrates fuzzy logic into battery management. The paper demonstrates practical feasibility by implementing a fuzzy-based BMS in real hardware, providing a clear contrast between traditional and fuzzy-based battery management approaches. Furthermore, the comparison of two different battery chemistries strengthens the validation of the proposed system. While the paper is well-structured and enjoyable to read, major revisions are required to enhance its clarity and impact.
- The authors state that fuzzy logic has been documented ( the introduction part also mentioned it many times), yet the paper lacks a direct quantitative comparison between the proposed fuzzy system and conventional control methods. It would be beneficial to include quantitative metrics such as efficiency, speed and accuracy over traditional BMS approaches. Even though speed and efficiency are not the primary focus of this work, providing quantifiable insights would make the study more valuable to a broader audience.
- While the two-cell configuration is sufficient for validation, the paper should explicitly justify its relevance. The authors should clearly articulate why extending the system to a larger battery pack (>2 cells) is unnecessary for validation while discussing its potential scalability for practical applications.
- The paper omits SoC estimation, which is a critical aspect of modern battery management systems. Future work should explore integrating adaptive SoC estimation models alongside fuzzy logic. Additionally, the outlook section could benefit from references to recent advancements in SoC/SOH estimation (Batteries, 2023, 9(6), 329 and Journal of Power Sources 608 (2024): 234669), to further highlight the potential enhancements of the proposed BMS.
- The selection of membership functions is a crucial aspect of the fuzzy logic-based BMS. The authors should explicitly clarify whether these functions were derived from empirical data, manufacturer specifications, or prior research, as this could be a significant contribution of the work.
- Minor issues: the distinction between Li-ion and LiFePO4 batteries should be clarified, as LiFePO4 belongs to the broader Li-ion battery family. This terminology could cause confusion for some readers. Figure quality should be improved, ensuring all visuals are clear and readable. Proper formatting and labeling should be checked.
Author Response
This is an interesting research article that successfully integrates fuzzy logic into battery management. The paper demonstrates practical feasibility by implementing a fuzzy-based BMS in real hardware, providing a clear contrast between traditional and fuzzy-based battery management approaches. Furthermore, the comparison of two different battery chemistries strengthens the validation of the proposed system. While the paper is well-structured and enjoyable to read, major revisions are required to enhance its clarity and impact.
The authors state that fuzzy logic has been documented (the introduction part also mentioned it many times), yet the paper lacks a direct quantitative comparison between the proposed fuzzy system and conventional control methods. It would be beneficial to include quantitative metrics such as efficiency, speed and accuracy over traditional BMS approaches. Even though speed and efficiency are not the primary focus of this work, providing quantifiable insights would make the study more valuable to a broader audience.
The paper goal is to present a new hardware design that utilizes a fuzzy inference system to charge and balance two battery cells in series.
While the two-cell configuration is sufficient for validation, the paper should explicitly justify its relevance. The authors should clearly articulate why extending the system to a larger battery pack (>2 cells) is unnecessary for validation while discussing its potential scalability for practical applications.
The paper has limited the battery pack to 2 due to hardware limitation.
The paper omits SoC estimation, which is a critical aspect of modern battery management systems. Future work should explore integrating adaptive SoC estimation models alongside fuzzy logic. Additionally, the outlook section could benefit from references to recent advancements in SoC/SOH estimation (Batteries, 2023, 9(6), 329 and Journal of Power Sources 608 (2024): 234669), to further highlight the potential enhancements of the proposed BMS.
It is now mentioned as a future work in the conclusion section.
The selection of membership functions is a crucial aspect of the fuzzy logic-based BMS. The authors should explicitly clarify whether these functions were derived from empirical data, manufacturer specifications, or prior research, as this could be a significant contribution of the work.
We used membership functions that were suggested by other authors and references were cited for that.
Minor issues: the distinction between Li-ion and LiFePO4 batteries should be clarified, as LiFePO4 belongs to the broader Li-ion battery family. This terminology could cause confusion for some readers. Figure quality should be improved, ensuring all visuals are clear and readable. Proper formatting and labeling should be checked.
Fixed within the introduction.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would like to see more information about how the membership functions were proposed, because a design method can generalize your contribution to other kinds of batteries.
Your paper is interesting, I think some comments about stability can improve your contribution to have confidence in similar applications.
Figure 8 can be replaced by a table to summarize all the fuzzy rules.
Author Response
I would like to see more information about how the membership functions were proposed, because a design method can generalize your contribution to other kinds of batteries.
We proposed membership functions that were generated based on our experience and knowledge of BMS.
Your paper is interesting; I think some comments about stability can improve your contribution to have confidence in similar applications.
The Fuzzy Battery Management System (BMS) successfully achieved its goal of charging and balancing rechargeable cells with high adaptability to various battery chemistries by simply adjusting its membership functions. Its stability and operability on real hardware are demonstrated in figures 18 and 19.
Figure 8 can be replaced by a table to summarize all the fuzzy rules.
Figure 8 is now table 1.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed most of my comments. However, they are encouraged to consider the following from my last round:
- Abstract section: Please provide quantitative values ​​to highlight the main results of the work.
- Page 2 left column: The citations are repetitive. For example, citation [6] is cited 4 times in a row in two different paragraphs. It is suggested that you can summarize the information from the work related to [6] and only cite it once. The same in a previous paragraph with citation [8].
- It is suggested that the authors can improve the bibliography by submitting papers in JCR journals or patents not older than 5 years. This will help to make a significant improvement to the Introduction and help to highlight the novelty of the work.
Author Response
Abstract section: Please provide quantitative values ​​to highlight the main results of the work.
The goal of this paper is to introduce a new hardware design that employs a fuzzy inference system to charge and balance two battery cells in series. It focuses on demonstrating the system's functionality through qualitative insights, without including quantitative analysis.
Page 2 left column: The citations are repetitive. For example, citation [6] is cited 4 times in a row in two different paragraphs. It is suggested that you can summarize the information from the work related to [6] and only cite it once. The same in a previous paragraph with citation [8].
We have taken the reviewer's suggestion into account and revised the paper accordingly.
It is suggested that the authors can improve the bibliography by submitting papers in JCR journals or patents not older than 5 years. This will help to make a significant improvement to the Introduction and help to highlight the novelty of the work.
The reference section contains all the sources we cited. However, there are limited references available on the topic of fuzzy hardware implementation for battery management systems (BMS).
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author revised properly, and I suggest this manuscript would be accepted in this Journal.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageDouble check the descriptions before publication.
Author Response
The author revised properly, and I suggest this manuscript would be accepted in this Journal.
The paper language has been improved.
