Framework and Classification of Battery System Architectures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

The paper presents the framework and classification of battery system architectures. However, there are some comments to improve the paper's quality. The comments are:

1.     The literature review and comparison to previous works are weak and require improvements.

2.     In the introduction section, add a paragraph describing the paper idea and contributions.

3.     At the end of the introduction section, a paragraph describing the paper's construction must be added.

4.     More results, comparisons, and discussions are needed.

5.     Many language errors are presented such as: (Please review all the manuscript carefully)

·       Line 27 “at cell level [5].” replace it with “at the cell level [5].”

·       Line 29 “….much more the energy density….” rewrite the sentence.

·       Line 33 “in series and or parallel” correct it.

·       Line 481 “also on an efficient” correct it.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your feedback on our paper.

Point 1: The literature review and comparison to previous works are weak and require improvements.

Response 1: You are the literature review was not comprehensive enough. We now incorporated a literature review which you will find in the lines 67 - 75.

 

Point 2: In the introduction section, add a paragraph describing the paper idea and contributions.

Response 2: We added the lines 76 - 80.

 

Point 3: At the end of the introduction section, a paragraph describing the paper's construction must be added.

Response 3:  We now added the lines 80 - 85.

 

Point 4: More results, comparisons, and discussions are needed.

Response 4: The paper already contains 15 pages. But we incorperated your feedback trough a added summary, which you will find in lines 514 - 518.

 

Point 5: Many language errors are presented such as: (Please review all the manuscript carefully)

• Line 27 “at cell level [5].” replace it with “at the cell level [5].”
• Line 29 “….much more the energy density….” rewrite the sentence.
• Line 33 “in series and or parallel” correct it.
• Line 481 “also on an efficient” correct it.

Response 5: Language errors are corrected and the paper was checked again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this work, the authors distinguished each level of the battery in detail and further analyzed the four-generation system architecture. This paper can be considered for publication if the authors can address the following comments:

1. The format of this paper needs to be checked. For example, are the content of Lines 31 and 112 the beginning of a paragraph?

2. The distinction between modules and packs is not very clear, in Lines 95 to 102. For example, why is the Volvo heavy duty electric truck in the example in Line 122 a battery system made of battery packs? What about the modules?

3. What is the difference between the case of a module and the case of a battery pack?

4. Can the authors briefly introduce the advantages and disadvantages of 8 different types?

5. The authors should highlight the new findings, insights or perspectives in this paper with a summative statement.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for takeing the time to review our paper.

Point 1: The format of this paper needs to be checked. For example, are the content of Lines 31 and 112 the beginning of a paragraph?

Response 1: You are the format was not correct at the beginning of the paragraphs. We now changed the format - see lines 31 and 124.

 

Point 2:  The distinction between modules and packs is not very clear, in Lines 95 to 102. For example, why is the Volvo heavy duty electric truck in the example in Line 122 a battery system made of battery packs? What about the modules?

Response 2: We now added an extended section to differentiate between modules and packs and systems - see line 132 - 153.

 

Point 3: What is the difference between the case of a module and the case of a battery pack?

Response 3: We now incorporated this in the lines 139 to 145.

 

Point 4: Can the authors briefly introduce the advantages and disadvantages of 8 different types?

Response 4: Please see lines 486 - 503

 

Point 5: The authors should highlight the new findings, insights or perspectives in this paper with a summative statement.

Response 5: we now added a summary statement - sse line 514 to 518.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No comments

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors reflected all the comments made by reviewers. I believe that this article can be accepted for publication.