Design and Experimental Validation of an Inductive Wireless Power Transfer Platform for Static EV Charging

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

  This paper presents the design and experimental validation of a high-power inductive wireless power transfer (WPT) system for electric vehicle charging, including a coupled magnetic–electrical design methodology and prototype-level verification. The work demonstrates practical implementation with promising efficiency and safety results. However, the current manuscript lacks sufficient methodological rigor, deeper technical insight, and clearer positioning of its contribution relative to existing studies. Therefore, a major revision is recommended before the paper can be considered for publication.

1. The paper repeatedly emphasizes an integrated design workflow combining magnetic design, power electronics, and safety assessment (Sections 4.1–4.4), but the methodology remains largely conceptual. The workflow in Figure 3 describes iterative optimization steps, yet it does not clearly specify how design variables are quantitatively linked, nor how trade-offs are systematically resolved. As a result, the proposed methodology appears more descriptive than prescriptive, limiting its reproducibility and engineering value.
2. Although the final coil geometry and parameters are presented (e.g., 700 × 800 mm coil, 7 turns, coupling factor ≈ 0.45), the underlying design reasoning is not sufficiently detailed. The manuscript states that a “balanced compromise” is achieved, but does not provide a clear explanation of how specific design decisions (e.g., turn number, ferrite arrangement) influence coupling, losses, and field distribution. A deeper discussion linking geometry choices to electromagnetic performance would strengthen the technical contribution.
3. The experimental results demonstrate efficiency in the range of 80–92% and acceptable misalignment tolerance (Section 7–8), but the manuscript does not provide sufficient theoretical insight into these outcomes. In particular, the relationship between coupling factor, resonant tuning, and efficiency behavior is not analyzed in depth. The results are mainly reported rather than interpreted, which limits the understanding of the system’s performance characteristics.
4. The manuscript claims that the proposed system can be extended from static to on-route charging (e.g., Sections 1 and 3.4), but this extension remains largely conceptual. The key challenges associated with dynamic charging—such as time-varying coupling, power transfer continuity, and control adaptation—are not sufficiently discussed. This weakens the credibility of the claimed applicability to on-route scenarios.
5. The background should highlight the rapid development of EVs, thereby enhancing the research value of this paper. Some recent work, such as “A Hierarchical Control of Independently Driven Electric Vehicles Considering Handling Stability and Energy Conservation, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 738-751, Jan. 2024” can be referred.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and technically insightful comments. We appreciate the recognition that the work demonstrates practical implementation with promising efficiency and safety results. In the revised manuscript, we have substantially strengthened the methodological framing, expanded the analytical discussion, improved the explanation of the magnetic-coupler design choices, added more explicit prototype-oriented experimental documentation, and clearly narrowed the experimentally validated contribution to static EV charging only. The main revisions made in response to Reviewer 1 are summarized below.

Comment 1

The paper repeatedly emphasizes an integrated design workflow combining magnetic design, power electronics, and safety assessment (Sections 4.1–4.4), but the methodology remains largely conceptual. The workflow in Figure 3 describes iterative optimization steps, yet it does not clearly specify how design variables are quantitatively linked, nor how trade-offs are systematically resolved. As a result, the proposed methodology appears more descriptive than prescriptive, limiting its reproducibility and engineering value.

Response

We agree with the Reviewer that the original version overstated the methodological contribution and did not sufficiently formalize the design logic. In response, Section 4 was substantially revised and reformulated as “Design Procedure and Formalized Parameter Selection.” In the revised version, we explicitly define the engineering design criteria, introduce the design vector, state the constrained parameter-selection problem, and describe the final selection process as an iterative constrained parameter sweep with simulation-supported refinement, rather than as a generic “optimization loop.” Figure 3 and its accompanying text were also rewritten so that the workflow is now presented as a formalized engineering design-and-selection workflow linking requirements, analytical IPT modeling, parameter screening, refinement, and prototype validation, instead of as a black-box optimization methodology. This revision was made precisely to improve reproducibility and to clarify how trade-offs among coupling, inductance, losses, geometry, and field exposure were handled in the engineering selection process.

Comment 2

Although the final coil geometry and parameters are presented (e.g., 700 × 800 mm coil, 7 turns, coupling factor ≈ 0.45), the underlying design reasoning is not sufficiently detailed. The manuscript states that a “balanced compromise” is achieved, but does not provide a clear explanation of how specific design decisions (e.g., turn number, ferrite arrangement) influence coupling, losses, and field distribution. A deeper discussion linking geometry choices to electromagnetic performance would strengthen the technical contribution.

Response

We agree and have strengthened this part of the manuscript in two ways. First, the revised Section 5.1.1 now introduces explicit analytical relations for the compensated IPT system, including the relationship between mutual inductance and coupling factor, reflected impedance, resonance conditions, and the influence of coupling on transferred power and efficiency. Second, Sections 5.2 and 5.3 were revised to make the design rationale more explicit. In particular, the revised text now clarifies that the realized geometry with 7 turns, 8 mm spacing, ferrite-assisted flux guidance, and the reported 700 × 800 mm coil footprint was not presented merely as a final shape, but as the result of a constrained engineering design procedure in which self-inductance, coupling, coil losses, ferrite usage, mass, and stray-field control were considered jointly. The manuscript now explicitly states that the realized geometry is a parameterized magnetic structure whose self-inductance, coupling factor, and loss behavior directly influence the electrical performance of the complete WPT platform. We believe these revisions address the Reviewer’s request for a clearer link between geometry and electromagnetic performance.

Comment 3

The experimental results demonstrate efficiency in the range of 80–92% and acceptable misalignment tolerance (Section 7–8), but the manuscript does not provide sufficient theoretical insight into these outcomes. In particular, the relationship between coupling factor, resonant tuning, and efficiency behavior is not analyzed in depth. The results are mainly reported rather than interpreted, which limits the understanding of the system’s performance characteristics.

Response

We agree and revised the manuscript specifically to address this point. A new analytical subsection, Section 5.1.1 (“Analytical Relations for the Compensated IPT System”), was added to connect the magnetic-coupler parameters to system-level electrical behavior. This section now includes the relations between coupling factor and mutual inductance, the primary/secondary phasor equations, reflected impedance, resonance conditions, and compact expressions for transferred power and near-resonant efficiency. We also introduced a local sensitivity interpretation of the coupling factor as a function of air gap and lateral displacement. In Section 8.1, the discussion was rewritten so that the reported efficiency behavior is no longer merely stated, but interpreted through the analytical relations. In particular, the revised manuscript now explains why the experimentally favorable region around 30 kW and approximately 70 mm air gap corresponds to a practical balance among coupling, resonant tuning, and current levels, and why increased air gap or lateral displacement reduces coupling and therefore degrades power-transfer capability and efficiency. In addition, Section 7 was strengthened with expanded prototype documentation, a table of technical specifications, mechanical realization of the transmitting module, representative converter-side waveforms, thermographic images, and the efficiency map under different displacement conditions. Together, these additions improve both the physical interpretation and the experimental grounding of the reported results.

Comment 4

The manuscript claims that the proposed system can be extended from static to on-route charging (e.g., Sections 1 and 3.4), but this extension remains largely conceptual. The key challenges associated with dynamic charging—such as time-varying coupling, power transfer continuity, and control adaptation—are not sufficiently discussed. This weakens the credibility of the claimed applicability to on-route scenarios.

Response

We fully agree with this concern and have substantially narrowed the validated scope of the paper. The revised manuscript now makes it explicit that the platform is experimentally validated only for static charging. This narrowing was implemented consistently in the title, abstract, Introduction, Figure 1 caption, Sections 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 6.1, 7.3, and the Conclusions. In the revised Section 3.4, on-route charging is no longer presented as a validated operating mode, but as a future extension of the same underlying inductive-transfer principle. We now explicitly state that dynamic or segmented charging introduces additional challenges, including time-varying coupling, alignment changes, power-transfer continuity, segment activation, and control adaptation, and that these aspects are outside the present validation scope. In this way, the revised manuscript separates the experimentally supported static contribution from the conceptual future perspective and avoids overstating the present applicability to on-route charging.

Comment 5

The background should highlight the rapid development of EVs, thereby enhancing the research value of this paper. Some recent work, such as “A Hierarchical Control of Independently Driven Electric Vehicles Considering Handling Stability and Energy Conservation, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 738-751, Jan. 2024” can be referred.

Response

We thank the Reviewer for this useful suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we strengthened the background discussion in the Introduction and Related Works sections to more clearly emphasize the rapid development of electric mobility and the resulting need for practical, reliable, and deployment-oriented wireless charging solutions. We also updated the literature context with several recent references on EV wireless charging, compensation topologies, magnetic-coupler design, interoperability, and safety-oriented system requirements. With regard to the suggested paper, we appreciate its relevance to the broader development of advanced EV systems. Although it is not directly focused on wireless charging hardware or IPT platform design, it is useful in highlighting the broader pace of EV-system development and the importance of engineering-ready subsystems in future electric mobility. This broader motivation is now reflected more clearly in the revised background discussion.

Concluding response to Reviewer 1

We again thank the Reviewer for the constructive comments. We believe that the revised manuscript now addresses the major concerns by:
(i) formalizing the design procedure more explicitly;
(ii) strengthening the link between geometry, coupling, resonant behavior, and efficiency;
(iii) expanding the experimental documentation with practical prototype-oriented details and representative waveforms; and
(iv) clearly restricting the experimentally validated contribution to static charging while treating on-route charging strictly as future work. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the rigor, clarity, and credibility of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents the design, implementation, and experimental validation of a 30 kW-class inductive wireless power transfer (WPT) system for EV static charging, with a conceptual extension toward dynamic/on-route charging. The work integrates magnetic coupler design, resonant converter implementation, and electromagnetic safety assessment, supported by prototype-level experimental results.

1.The claimed contribution as an “integrated design methodology” is not sufficiently differentiated from existing literature. The manuscript largely combines standard elements (magnetic coupler design, resonant compensation, full-bridge inverter) without introducing a clearly novel analytical framework, optimization algorithm, or control strategy. The design workflow in Section 4 remains high-level and descriptive rather than mathematically rigorous or reproducible. No explicit optimization formulation (objective functions, constraints, solver) is provided.

2.The manuscript lacks essential analytical derivations. The equivalent IPT model (Section 5.1) is introduced, but no governing equations for power transfer, efficiency, or resonance conditions are rigorously derived. Key relationships such as reflected impedance, power transfer capability, and sensitivity to coupling/misalignment are not quantified. This limits the scientific value and reproducibility of the work.

3.Although a prototype is presented, the experimental validation is not sufficiently comprehensive. No detailed experimental setup is shown (e.g., hardware configuration, measurement instruments, control implementation, etc.)

4.The manuscript does not provide a quantitative comparison with existing WPT systems. Parameters such as efficiency (80–92%), coupling factor (0.45), and air gap (100 mm) are presented without benchmarking against similar systems. This makes it difficult to assess the actual contribution.

5.The discussion on on-route charging is overstated. While the manuscript repeatedly refers to the extension toward dynamic charging, no modeling, simulation, or experimental validation is provided for such scenarios. This part remains purely conceptual and should be clearly separated from the validated contributions.

6. The electromagnetic safety assessment is limited in scope. The evaluation is based on a small number of measurement points, without providing a comprehensive spatial field distribution or worst-case analysis. The adopted reference threshold of 27 μT is not sufficiently justified, nor is it rigorously linked to established standards such as ICNIRP or SAE guidelines.

7.There is noticeable redundancy in the structure, particularly in Sections 2 to 4. Similar statements regarding the integration of magnetic, electrical, and safety aspects are repeated multiple times without adding new insights. This affects readability and weakens the clarity of the contribution.

8.The manuscript shows signs of non-native phrasing and translation artifacts. Some terms and sentence structures are not idiomatic for academic English, and overly long sentences reduce readability. Careful language editing service is required.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the detailed and constructive comments. We appreciate the recognition that the manuscript addresses the design, implementation, and experimental validation of a 30 kW-class inductive WPT system and combines magnetic-coupler design, resonant converter realization, and electromagnetic safety assessment. In the revised manuscript, we substantially narrowed the validated scope to static EV charging, reformulated the design section to improve rigor and reproducibility, added explicit analytical relations for the compensated IPT system, strengthened the experimental documentation, reduced redundancy, and improved the overall language and positioning of the contribution. Our detailed responses are provided below.

Comment 1

The claimed contribution as an “integrated design methodology” is not sufficiently differentiated from existing literature. The manuscript largely combines standard elements (magnetic coupler design, resonant compensation, full-bridge inverter) without introducing a clearly novel analytical framework, optimization algorithm, or control strategy. The design workflow in Section 4 remains high-level and descriptive rather than mathematically rigorous or reproducible. No explicit optimization formulation (objective functions, constraints, solver) is provided.

Response

We agree with the Reviewer that the original manuscript overstated the methodological novelty. In response, we substantially revised the contribution framing and Section 4. The manuscript no longer presents the work as a generic “integrated design methodology” in the earlier broad sense, but rather as a formalized engineering design and prototype-level validation study for a static EV charging platform. Specifically, Section 4 was rewritten as “Design Procedure and Formalized Parameter Selection,” where the engineering design criteria are explicitly stated, a design vector is introduced, and a constrained parameter-selection problem is formulated in terms of design objectives, constraints, and weighting factors. In addition, the final parameter set is now described as being obtained by iterative constrained parameter sweep and simulation-supported refinement, rather than by an unspecified high-level optimization loop. Figure 3 and its surrounding discussion were also rewritten so that the workflow is now clearly presented as a design-and-selection sequence linking requirements, analytical modeling, refinement, and prototype validation. We agree that the work does not introduce a fundamentally new black-box optimization algorithm or a novel control law; accordingly, the revised manuscript now positions its contribution more accurately as the integration of magnetic design, resonant realization, prototype implementation, and representative field assessment within one engineering study of static EV charging.

Comment 2

The manuscript lacks essential analytical derivations. The equivalent IPT model (Section 5.1) is introduced, but no governing equations for power transfer, efficiency, or resonance conditions are rigorously derived. Key relationships such as reflected impedance, power transfer capability, and sensitivity to coupling/misalignment are not quantified. This limits the scientific value and reproducibility of the work.

Response

We agree and addressed this point directly by adding a new analytical subsection, Section 5.1.1 (“Analytical Relations for the Compensated IPT System”). In the revised manuscript, this section now includes:
(i) the relation between mutual inductance and coupling factor;
(ii) the primary/secondary phasor equations of the compensated loosely coupled transformer;
(iii) the reflected impedance seen from the primary side;
(iv) the resonance conditions and corresponding compensation-capacitor selection relations;
(v) compact expressions for transferred power and near-resonant efficiency; and
(vi) a local sensitivity approximation linking the coupling factor to air gap and lateral displacement. These additions were introduced specifically to connect the magnetic-coupler parameters to system-level performance in a reproducible and interpretable way. In addition, Section 8.1 was rewritten so that the experimentally observed efficiency behavior is no longer simply reported, but interpreted using the new analytical relations. In this way, the revised manuscript now explicitly explains how reduced coupling due to larger air gap or misalignment affects reflected impedance, transferable power, and efficiency. We believe this substantially improves the scientific value and technical interpretability of the work.

Comment 3

Although a prototype is presented, the experimental validation is not sufficiently comprehensive. No detailed experimental setup is shown (e.g., hardware configuration, measurement instruments, control implementation, etc.)

Response

We agree that the original experimental documentation was too limited. In response, Section 7 was substantially expanded. The revised manuscript now includes:

• a new technical specification table (Table 2) summarizing the realized IPT module and reported prototype operating conditions;
• additional text describing the practical mechanical realization of the transmitting module;
• a new figure showing the mechanical realization of the transmitting IPT module and demonstrator installation;
• a new figure with representative converter-side waveforms recorded at the transmitting side under stated current and displacement conditions;
• revised thermographic documentation of the transmitting coil;
• the efficiency map under different horizontal displacement conditions; and
• a more clearly structured safety-measurement presentation.

We agree that the manuscript still does not claim a full instrumentation inventory or a complete industrial test report. However, the revised Section 7 now provides substantially more prototype-level documentation than the original submission and better supports the practical and experimental nature of the work. The control implementation is also described more clearly through the reported use of combined frequency-shift and phase-shift PWM operation under the stated prototype conditions.

Comment 4

The manuscript does not provide a quantitative comparison with existing WPT systems. Parameters such as efficiency (80–92%), coupling factor (0.45), and air gap (100 mm) are presented without benchmarking against similar systems. This makes it difficult to assess the actual contribution.

Response

We appreciate this comment and agree that benchmarking is important for contextualizing the results. In the revised manuscript, the Related Works section was strengthened and expanded with a broader and more current set of references covering magnetic-coupler design, resonant compensation, prototype demonstrations, misalignment-tolerant systems, dynamic charging systems, and safety/interoperability requirements. We also improved the discussion in Section 8 so that the reported values—such as coupling factor, efficiency range, and practical air-gap operation—are interpreted more explicitly in the context of a high-power static EV charging platform with a non-negligible air gap and prototype-level implementation. We agree that a dedicated benchmarking table would further improve the manuscript. While the present revision focuses primarily on resolving the more critical methodological, analytical, and scope-related issues raised by the reviewers, the manuscript now positions the reported results more clearly relative to the state of the art and avoids presenting them in isolation.

Comment 5

The discussion on on-route charging is overstated. While the manuscript repeatedly refers to the extension toward dynamic charging, no modeling, simulation, or experimental validation is provided for such scenarios. This part remains purely conceptual and should be clearly separated from the validated contributions.

Response

We fully agree and have made this one of the central revisions of the manuscript. The revised paper now explicitly separates the validated contribution from the future perspective. The title was changed to focus only on static EV charging. The abstract, Introduction, Figure 1 caption, Sections 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 6.1, 7.3, and the Conclusions were all revised to make it clear that the present work is experimentally validated only under static charging conditions. On-route charging is now treated strictly as a possible future extension of the same inductive-transfer principle, and the revised text explicitly acknowledges the unresolved challenges of time-varying coupling, alignment changes, power-transfer continuity, segment activation, and control adaptation. In this way, the revised manuscript no longer overstates dynamic applicability and now clearly separates conceptual future work from experimentally supported results.

Comment 6

The electromagnetic safety assessment is limited in scope. The evaluation is based on a small number of measurement points, without providing a comprehensive spatial field distribution or worst-case analysis. The adopted reference threshold of 27 μT is not sufficiently justified, nor is it rigorously linked to established standards such as ICNIRP or SAE guidelines.

Response

We agree that the safety evaluation remains limited in scope and revised the manuscript to reflect this more transparently. In the revised version, the safety assessment is consistently described as a representative occupied-area magnetic-field assessment under the reported experimental conditions, rather than as a full compliance certification or a complete spatial field map. The manuscript now explicitly states this limitation in the safety section and in the discussion of the results. In addition, the background and related-work sections were strengthened through clearer reference to the relevant standards and guideline framework, including IEC 61980 Parts 1–3, IEC PAS 61980-5, ISO 19363, SAE J2954, and ICNIRP exposure guidelines, so that the adopted threshold is now better contextualized within the established safety framework. The revised manuscript therefore does not overclaim a full exposure characterization; instead, it presents the available measurements honestly as representative evidence that the realized static charging platform operated below the adopted reference level at the measured locations.

Comment 7

There is noticeable redundancy in the structure, particularly in Sections 2 to 4. Similar statements regarding the integration of magnetic, electrical, and safety aspects are repeated multiple times without adding new insights. This affects readability and weakens the clarity of the contribution.

Response

We agree and performed a substantial structural cleanup. Sections 2 to 4 were revised to reduce repetition and to better separate background, contribution framing, and design logic. In particular:

• the Introduction now states the contribution more directly and more narrowly;
• the Related Works section was streamlined to position the study more clearly relative to converter-oriented, coupler-oriented, dynamic-charging, and standards-oriented literature;
• Section 4 was completely reformulated to focus on the actual engineering design procedure rather than repeated claims about “integration”; and
• repeated statements about combining magnetic, electrical, and safety aspects were reduced or rephrased to improve readability.
  We believe these changes significantly improved the clarity and reduced the earlier redundancy.

Comment 8

The manuscript shows signs of non-native phrasing and translation artifacts. Some terms and sentence structures are not idiomatic for academic English, and overly long sentences reduce readability. Careful language editing service is required.

Response

We thank the Reviewer for this observation and agree. The revised manuscript underwent extensive language and style editing. Numerous non-idiomatic constructions, repetitive sentences, and overly long formulations were revised throughout the paper. In addition, terminology was made more consistent, especially in the areas of design framing, prototype validation, and safety discussion. We also corrected several formatting inconsistencies, figure and table references, and residual drafting artifacts. We agree that language quality is important for technical clarity, and we have made a substantial effort to improve readability in the revised version.

Concluding response to Reviewer 2

We again thank the Reviewer for the thorough and constructive assessment. We believe the revised manuscript now addresses the main concerns by:
(i) narrowing the validated contribution to static charging only;
(ii) reformulating the design section into a more explicit and reproducible engineering procedure;
(iii) adding analytical derivations for the compensated IPT system;
(iv) substantially expanding the prototype-oriented experimental documentation;
(v) clarifying the limited scope of the electromagnetic safety assessment; and
(vi) improving structure, language, and consistency throughout the manuscript. We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the rigor, clarity, and credibility of the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The objective function and constraint conditions for the optimization are not provided.

2. The specific algorithm used for the optimization is not stated.

3. The paper presents a thermal image, but fails to specify the testing conditions, including the exact input power, test duration, and ambient temperature. Additionally, it does not clarify whether the system had reached a thermal steady state.

4. Waveforms of some key nodes should be provided.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the focused and constructive comments. We appreciate that the points raised concern key aspects of rigor and reproducibility. In the revised manuscript, we have addressed these comments by formalizing the design problem in Section 4, introducing explicit analytical relations in Section 5.1.1, expanding the prototype-oriented documentation in Section 7, and adding representative converter-side waveforms. We also revised the thermographic discussion to present it more carefully and transparently. Our detailed responses are given below.

Comment 1

The objective function and constraint conditions for the optimization are not provided.

Response

We agree with the Reviewer and addressed this directly in the revised manuscript. Section 4 was substantially reformulated as “Design Procedure and Formalized Parameter Selection.” In particular, Section 4.2 now introduces an explicit constrained parameter-selection formulation, including a design vector, an objective function written in terms of transfer efficiency, estimated losses, total mass, and occupied-area magnetic-flux density, and a corresponding set of engineering constraints related to inductance, coupling, transferred power, operating-frequency range, and field-exposure limits. The intention of this revision was to make the design logic more explicit and reproducible, while still reflecting the engineering nature of the actual parameter-selection process used in the study.

Comment 2

The specific algorithm used for the optimization is not stated.

Response

We agree and have clarified this point in the revised manuscript. Rather than implying the use of an unspecified black-box optimizer, Section 4.3 now states explicitly that the final parameter set was obtained by iterative constrained parameter sweep and simulation-supported refinement. The revised text explains that candidate designs were screened with respect to inductance, coupling-dependent transfer capability, estimated losses, and geometric feasibility, and were then further refined through simulation-supported evaluation of magnetic behavior and field distribution. In this way, the manuscript now states the specific engineering selection procedure used, while avoiding the earlier overstatement that could suggest a more formal or generic optimization algorithm than was actually documented.

Comment 3

The paper presents a thermal image, but fails to specify the testing conditions, including the exact input power, test duration, and ambient temperature. Additionally, it does not clarify whether the system had reached a thermal steady state.

Response

We thank the Reviewer for this important observation. We agree that the original wording around the thermographic image could be interpreted too strongly relative to the level of thermal test documentation available in the manuscript. In the revised version, we therefore treated the thermographic results more carefully and transparently. The thermal image discussion was rewritten so that the FLIR figure is now presented as qualitative thermographic support under the reported operating conditions, rather than as a complete steady-state thermal characterization. In particular, we removed stronger claims implying full thermal verification and now state only that the thermographic patterns qualitatively indicate a non-critical temperature distribution and provide additional support for the practical operation of the realized transmitting pad. We also ensured that the surrounding prototype section more clearly states the reported prototype operating level and converter operating range, while avoiding unsupported claims about thermal steady state. We agree that a more detailed thermal protocol, including exact duration, ambient temperature, and steady-state confirmation, would further strengthen the manuscript and remains an appropriate direction for future experimental expansion.

Comment 4

Waveforms of some key nodes should be provided.

Response

We agree and addressed this in the revised manuscript. Section 7.2 now includes a dedicated paragraph introducing representative converter-side waveforms, and a new figure was added showing measured waveforms at the transmitting side of the IPT system under stated current and displacement conditions. The corresponding figure caption identifies the measured quantities explicitly, including the transmitting-coil voltage, the primary compensation-capacitor voltage, and the transmitting-side current. These additions were introduced specifically to provide direct experimental evidence of the resonant-stage behavior and the electrical compatibility between the implemented power stage and the realized magnetic coupler, beyond averaged efficiency measurements alone.

Concluding response to Reviewer 3

We again thank the Reviewer for the concise and useful comments. We believe that the revised manuscript now addresses the raised concerns by:
(i) introducing an explicit objective function and engineering constraint set;
(ii) clearly stating the parameter-selection algorithm as iterative constrained parameter sweep with simulation-supported refinement;
(iii) revising the thermographic discussion to reflect its actual qualitative role more honestly; and
(iv) adding representative measured waveforms of key transmitting-side electrical quantities. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the rigor and clarity of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

   I cannot see the revised parts in the new submission. Furthermore, the innovation of this work cannot be satisfied.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the reviewer’s additional comments and for the time devoted to the evaluation of the revised manuscript.

With regard to the first point, we would like to respectfully clarify that, in the previous resubmission, we provided both a revised manuscript with tracked changes and a detailed point-by-point response to all reviewer comments, in which the corresponding modifications were explicitly indicated and explained. In this sense, we intended the revised parts and their locations in the manuscript to be fully transparent and traceable. Nevertheless, we appreciate that some revisions may not have been sufficiently apparent during the review process, and we have therefore taken additional care in the present resubmission to ensure that all revisions are as clear and traceable as possible.

With regard to the comment on innovation, we respectfully submit that the contribution of the manuscript may be better understood as an integrated engineering and experimental contribution rather than as a claim of a fundamentally new wireless power transfer principle. The manuscript presents the design, prototype realization, and experimental validation of a static EV wireless charging platform that combines magnetic-coupler design, resonant power-stage integration, and occupied-area magnetic-field assessment within one application-oriented framework. The reported results include a realized Tx/Rx magnetic assembly with an inductance of about 60 μH, a coupling factor of about 0.45, prototype-level validation at a nominal 30 kW operating level with peak capability up to 45 kW for 1 min, measured transfer efficiency in the range of 80–92%, and representative magnetic-flux-density measurements below the adopted 27 μT reference level under the reported operating conditions.

We would also like to emphasize that the revised manuscript consistently states that the present experimental validation is limited to static charging, whereas possible extension toward segmented or on-route charging is discussed only as future work and not as an experimentally validated result.

To further improve clarity, the revised manuscript has been positioned more explicitly with respect to the existing literature. In particular, the work is presented not as a broad review, but as an application-oriented study integrating magnetic design, resonant implementation, prototype validation, and safety-oriented field assessment within a single experimentally supported workflow for static EV wireless charging. In this context, we believe that this integrated realization and validation constitute the principal practical contribution of the manuscript.

We are grateful to the reviewer for this comment, as it has helped us to further clarify the scope, positioning, and contribution of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments have been addressed.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the reviewer’s positive evaluation of the revised manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the confirmation that all comments have been addressed. We are also grateful for the constructive feedback provided in the earlier round, which helped us improve the manuscript. In addition, we have carefully proofread the manuscript once again in order to further improve the English language and overall clarity.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are still some formatting errors, Such as Eq. 3.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the reviewer’s comment and for the careful evaluation of the revised manuscript.

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the remaining formatting issues. Accordingly, we have carefully rechecked the manuscript and corrected the formatting, including the presentation of Eq. 3 and related details where necessary.

We have also proofread the manuscript once again in order to further improve the English language and the overall presentation.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has addressed my concerns well.