Accurate Efficiency and Power Densities Optimization of Output Inductor of Buck Derived Converters
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors proposed an optimization process in the view of solving the tradeoff between switching frequency- current ripple and output inductor value in the case a Buck derived converter. The results look encouraging and motivating. But there are still some contents, which need be revised in order to meet the requirements of publish. A number of concerns listed as follows:
(1) The abstract should be narrow down on the problem and highlight the need of the proposed work with experimental results.
(2) In this paper, the main contributions of this paper should be further summarized and clearly demonstrated.
(3) Please provide a flow of the proposed method.
(4) The theoretical background of the proposed method is adequately detailed in the paper.
(5) In order to highlight the introduction, some latest references should be added to the paper for improving the reviews part. For example, 10.1016/j.isatra.2021.07.017 ;10.1109/JSTARS.2021.3059451 ; 10.3390/agriculture12060793ï¼› 10.1007/s10489-022-03719-6 and so on.
(6) To explore Comparative results with existing approaches/methods relating to the proposed work.
(7) The authors need to interpret the meanings of the variables.
(8) At Line 383, Cx20= 20µF, L=3µH, Cx20=20µF…. They are how to determine the values?
(9) Correct typological mistakes and mathematical errors.
(10) The paper is in need of revision in terms of eliminating grammatical errors, and improving clarity and readability.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their feedback and the numerous comments provided to help us improve the paper. We recognize that the paper was submitted on the very last day of the special session and we did not have time to make it the best we could.
Meanwhile the errors, reviewers have granted us the opportunity to improve the paper and prepare a new version, hopefully in better shape than the initial version.
Next pages are provided comments on reviewers feedbacks. Also, we submitted the new version with simple revision marks since there are many and it is not possible to read correctly the new version with all revision marks. We also submitted the paper with all revision marks in order to show the revision effort we have carried out in order to answer reviewers requests.
Below are answer, point by point to reviewer remarks and requests:
(1) The abstract should be narrow down on the problem and highlight the need of the proposed work with experimental results:
The abstract has been entirely revised highlighting more clearly the need of the work.
(2) In this paper, the main contributions of this paper should be further summarized and clearly demonstrated:
the main contribution as been summarized with the update of the introduction.
(3) Please provide a flow of the proposed method:
An additional schematic as been added (Figure 5 – in part 2.2).
(4) The theoretical background of the proposed method is adequately detailed in the paper:
Equivalence between the model presented and standard Steinmetz has been proposed in part 2.1.
(5) In order to highlight the introduction, some latest references should be added to the paper for improving the reviews part. For example, 10.1016/j.isatra.2021.07.017 ;10.1109/JSTARS.2021.3059451 ; 10.3390/agriculture12060793ï¼› 10.1007/s10489-022-03719-6 and so on:
References has been added all along the paper to highlight the current nature of the topic and to improve the reviews part.
(6) To explore Comparative results with existing approaches/methods relating to the proposed work:
References with equivalent approach and corresponding result has been added to validate models. No direct comparative work could been made due to the theoretical approach of the applicable literature, has it need information not available for newer high technological passives components.
(7) The authors need to interpret the meanings of the variables:
The variable have been listed and the meaning clarified. Also, the typography and coherence has been verified and corrected
(8) At Line 383, Cx20= 20µF, L=3µH, Cx20=20µF…. They are how to determine the values?
The methodology to select L has been clarified. The Cx value are chosen according to equation 18 and 19 for each inductor value. Cx1 and Cx2 are chosen equals to simplify the design process.
(9) Correct typological mistakes and mathematical errors:
The paper has been significantly written again with many typo corrections in the text and in equations when necessary.
(10) The paper is in need of revision in terms of eliminating grammatical errors, and improving clarity and readability:
The article has been entirely revised. We expect to have reached a satisfactory grammatical accuracy. As for clarity and readability, we expect to have increased them to make an interesting paper without leaving doubts about the result and terminology.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I have read the article and find that there are serious shortcomings.
first of all, the problem is well known, the skin effect is extensively discussed and there is no reference to an electrical engineering text.
I suggest that the authors study the problem better, take a model in the literature as a reference and make comparisons.
List of errors, by considering the first part, so authors know why the paper is not consideret for publication.
1) Authors should use the space between number and unit of measure and review everything.
2) line 32, to quote better
3) line 34, kW / L l liter is lowercase
4) line 56, iron losses are neglected in the paper
5) here we must say how the paper is divided in the next part
6) line 25, the introduction is not paragraph 0, need to be adjusted
7) line 102, section 1, should not be written
8) line 125, it is not quoted like this
9) line 125, figure 2 or Figure 2, choose whether lowercase or uppercase
10) 132, put cube
11) 140-143, are unexplained formulas, poorly described, who is L?
12) 144 figure 3, the first two have the same description
13) DRC is not defined as an acronym
14) 163, DRC is written with subscripts here, we don't put mOhm, but the symbol
15) 178, there is a point
16) 206, the parameters are poorly written and missing description and references where they come from
17) 213, figure 5, is an impedance not a series resistance if there is inductance
18) 217, the formula does not come from any reference
19) 219, there is a point
20) 255 there is no description
21) figure 7, the legend is wrong
22) 267, the figure is very bad, the model is of an equivalent impedance not of an inductor ...
23) 268, L?
24) formulas 4-6 not commented and without references
25) 311 factor 1e-9, is zero, should be commented out
26) 321 badly written parameters
27) section 2. no
the remainder is even worse as it lacks the references from where the capacitances for the filters are taken, it is equally full of errors and lacking in references.
I recommend the authors to read the article again to an electrical engineer who will explain to them how to write it and how to use the units of measurement and especially which formulas are either in common use or must be justified. I have not found any reference to iron losses, and I advise the authors to study these aspects. There are very few references, authors should study more
At present the paper is to be rejected.
Author Response
General comment for reviewers.
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their feedback and the numerous comments provided to help us improve the paper. We recognize that the paper was submitted on the very last day of the special session and we did not have time to make it the best we could.
Meanwhile the errors, reviewers have granted us the opportunity to improve the paper and prepare a new version, hopefully in better shape than the initial version.
Next pages are provided comments on reviewers feedbacks. Also, we submitted the new version with simple revision marks since there are many and it is not possible to read correctly the new version with all revision marks. We also submitted the paper with all revision marks in order to show the revision effort we have carried out in order to answer reviewers requests.
Thanks you again for the time you have spent providing feedbacks for improvements !
Kind regards,
Below are the remarks from reviewer 2 and the answers from the authors:
I have read the article and find that there are serious shortcomings.
first of all, the problem is well known, the skin effect is extensively discussed and there is no reference to an electrical engineering text.
References to books and article about skin effect have been added.
I suggest that the authors study the problem better, take a model in the literature as a reference and make comparisons.
References with equivalent approach and corresponding result have been added to highlight how ou modeling technique is complementary to existing one. No direct comparative work could been made due to the theoretical approach of the applicable literature which stand for inductor design rather than inductor selection.
List of errors, by considering the first part, so authors know why the paper is not consideret for publication.
1) Authors should use the space between number and unit of measure and review everything.
Equation and measure units have been corrected all along the article
2) line 32, to quote better
Quotes have been reviewed
3) line 34, kW / L l liter is lowercase
Equation and measure units have been corrected all along the article
4) line 56, iron losses are neglected in the paper
Terminology has been improved and reference to iron losses is now more precise. Actually, iron losses are taken into account in the characterization and modeling technique. It is represented and included in the series resistance model.
5) here we must say how the paper is divided in the next part
The introduction has been revised to perform a better summarisation of the article.
6) line 25, the introduction is not paragraph 0, need to be adjusted
Numeration has been reviewed
7) line 102, section 1, should not be written
Sections title has is now coherent. “Part” has been used in the text.
8) line 125, it is not quoted like this
9) line 125, figure 2 or Figure 2, choose whether lowercase or uppercase
All figures and equations are now quoted with uppercase for the legend and in the text
10) 132, put cube
Equation and measure units have been corrected all along the article
11) 140-143, are unexplained formulas, poorly described, who is L?
The variables have been listed and the meaning clarified. Also, the typography and coherence has been verified and corrected
12) 144 figure 3, the first two have the same description
The second has been erased. It was presenting the same information as the first but was not used and seems to not help the reader.
13) DRC is not defined as an acronym
The typography and coherence has been verified and corrected
14) 163, DRC is written with subscripts here, we don't put mOhm, but the symbol
Typography has been corrected (in text and figures)
15) 178, there is a point
Main titles as been made with coherent topography (uppercase – no point)
16) 206, the parameters are poorly written and missing description and references where they come from
The variables have been listed and the meaning clarified. Also, the typography and coherence has been verified and corrected
17) 213, figure 5, is an impedance not a series resistance if there is inductance
the inductor is considered as an inductance and a group of parasitic series resistor to calculate losses. It is not made to simulate the temporal functioning of the inductor.
18) 217, the formula does not come from any reference
The formula is now presented as an equivalent with a standard referenced equation
19) 219, there is a point
Main titles as been made with coherent topography (uppercase – no point)
20) 255 there is no description
Legends and typography of figures have been revised
21) figure 7, the legend is wrong
Legends and typography of figures have been revised
22) 267, the figure is very bad, the model is of an equivalent impedance not of an inductor ...
Right. Modified accordingly in the legend.
23) 268, L?
L is referring indifferently to the physical inductor value.
24) formulas 4-6 not commented and without references
Formulas 4 and 5 are commented and equivalent to formula 3
Formula 6 was not used and has been replaced by the power losses calculation that was lacking.
25) 311 factor 1e-9, is zero, should be commented out
The 1e-9 was du to a typing error as it is 1e-3 not 1e-9.
26) 321 badly written parameters
Typography of the parameters have been revised
27) section 2. No
Titles have been edited.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
1- The scalability and robustness of the proposed method should be evaluated.
2- Detailed information about the experimental case study for various transformers should be provided.
3- The grammar and readability of the article need to be improved, such as tense agreement.
4- The literature review is problematic. The authors discussed the importance of clinkering-fault prediction. In contrast, the review on technical development is insufficient, especially, the feature selection techniques.
5- The effectiveness of the proposed method needs to be verified by contrast experiments.
6- Discuss future scope and applications of your research
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, please fin attached our comments and explanations regarding your remarks and requests.
Best regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
the authors have revised the article and improved it, the choice of publication or not is now up to the editor.
This version is more interesting than the previous, I suggest to revise better next papers before the submission
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your kind and positive feedback regarding our second version.
Best regards,
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper can be accepted now.
