Multiobjective Optimization for a Li-Ion Battery and Supercapacitor Hybrid Energy Storage Electric Vehicle

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article deals with improving a hybrid energy storage system for electric vehicles. The title is topical, and the article has practical significance in minimizing specific energy consumption and powertrain costs for such vehicles.

Nevertheless, the following minor flaws should be fixed before the publication:

1. Due to various scientific articles published worldwide in energy storage systems for electric vehicles, the particular scientific novelty of the submitted article should be stated more transparently in the text. This will allow authors to improve the scientific soundness of the article.
2. Moreover, the scientific study is partially based on linear dependence (8) with weight factors as a common approach. However, this linear dependence should be substantiated and compared with other optimization approaches.
3. According to the template, the article should be structured more appropriately (i.e., titles of chapters 2–4).
4. Unfortunately, there is no discussion in the article. Therefore, a thorough comparison of the obtained data with the results of other authors should be provided.
5. Many misprints (i.e., spaces between words and sentences and English grammar) should be eliminated.
6. The quality of figure 3 is inappropriate.

Overall, the article can be recommended for publication after eliminating all the aforementioned disadvantages.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, a multi-objective optimization on a BT and SC HESS EV using both GA and ADVISOR software is studied. The EV’s energy consumption over 100 kilometers, acceleration time from 0 to 100 kilometers per hour, maximum speed, powertrain cost and running range are considered in the objective function. The idea of the paper is very interesting, and the paper is well organized. However, there are some concerns to be addressed before publication. The title is too long. According to international standard, it should be maximum 14 words. There are so many typos ad grammatical glitches. I suggest the authors to proofread it through a professional proofreading service for better readability. Some of the typos are given here: 1. Line 17 in the abstract “in nature.SO a multiobjective optimization problem considering energy…”, please make a comma before So, and ‘O’ of ‘So’ should be in small. 2. Line 13 in Abstract “. A Li-ion battery(BT) semi-active”, please give a space before (BT) as, battery (BT) instead of battery(BT). 3. Section 2.2, “(a)In most cases”, and “(b)When 0

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript ID: energies-1642702

Review Report:

 Multiobjective Optimization of Powertrain Component Sizing and Control Strategy Parameters for a Li-ion Battery and SuperCapacitor Hybrid Energy Storage Electric Vehicle

1. So many typo errors are presented in the paper

Example- in abstract

• SO – capital letters , “acceleration time from 0 to “–  uneven gab
•  
• How table Table 1. EV’s model parameters is selected- no references are given.
  Table 5. Motor parameters- also
• State the problem or the key issue of the energy management between Li Bat and Supercap
• Optimal energy control strategy – is not clear. Figure 2. Is not gave any value explanations

- Hard to track

In Eqs.(3) and (4) – why 0.5 is taken. How it is arrived?

• Again, in the Eq1(7). How the ranges are selected?
• Figure 4. Flowchart diagram of optimization. – not make any sense
• All the results are not clearly addressed
• Remove Table 8. Simulation results  and Table 9. two sets of weights from conclusion put in the results section itself

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Please see the attached document for detailed review comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for addressing the previous recommendations. The paper is now suitable for publication. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Still paper need a improvement to get final acceptance 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

I would like to thank the authors for improving the manuscript and the response letter. However, there are still some minor concerns as follows;

• Lines 22-23: "Advisor software in Matlab". What do you mean? Is Advisor software part of Matlab or do you integrate Advisor with Matlab? Be clear, Matlab and Advisor are two different software packages from different suppliers.
• Lines 23-24: "The optimization effect is better than the direct optimization algorithm. These phrase seem not to make sense. The word "effect", what does it suppose to mean in this content?
• The response content in the response letter provided for the first round is missing in the manuscript itself. Please ensure that what is in the response letter is also available in the revised manuscript.
• Section 5 heading can be deleted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised paper can be accepted in its present form