Examining Model-Based Fast-Charging and Preconditioning on a Vehicle Level

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, via systematic simulation, the authors probed various factors for the heat management of batteries for battery electric vehicles at vehicle level. 

I recommend acceptance of this manuscript after minor revisions. Meanwhile, I have the following Questions.

Q1. For the model used in this manuscript, can you provide it in the supporting information or related references of this model?

Q2. In line 120, it is mentioned that "higher target temperature lead to shorter charging times", this is a little counter-intuitive, can you explain why shorter times are needed for higher target temperature?

 

Author Response

Comment 1: In this manuscript, via systematic simulation, the authors probed various factors for the heat management of batteries for battery electric vehicles at vehicle level. I recommend acceptance of this manuscript after minor revisions. Meanwhile, I have the following Questions.

Response 1: Thank you for the positive feedback and recommendation for publication. Further comments are addressed in detail below.

 

Comment 2: For the model used in this manuscript, can you provide it in the supporting information or related references of this model?

Response 2: The model used in this paper is a commercially available proprietary model by the company Batemo, which is why we cannot directly publish the model itself. However, in previous studies, we have worked with an open-source electrochemical battery model (SPM) for a different cell and compared both, which can be used analogously:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2022.232586
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2022.105951
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2024.110968

We will furthermore also publish the simulation raw data via mediaTUM to provide more transparency. The data can be viewed during the review under the following link:

Link: https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/1750774
Login: reviewer-access-06
Pass: DmK18.9Ex*!ChPq$pRb

 

Comment 3: In line 120, it is mentioned that "higher target temperature lead to shorter charging times", this is a little counter-intuitive, can you explain why shorter times are needed for higher target temperature?

Response 3: We apologize for the lack of clarity regarding the charging time at higher temperatures. In this article, we deploy an anode-potential control strategy that aims to prevent lithium plating, which is particularly critical at low temperatures. As battery temperatures increase, the anode overpotential decreases, leading to a later derating of the current to prevent the threshold of 50 mV from being violated. This leads to faster overall charging times.

We agree that this was not clearly stated in the manuscript and have made the necessary changes.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The article concerns the issue of operating and charging battery electric vehicles. The results showed significant potential for energy savings and increased charging speeds through optimal scheduling of charging stops, pre-conditioning scheduling, cost-adapted temperature management thresholds and consideration of driver behavior. The work is interesting and the presented results bring new information to the issue of electric vehicles and battery operation. First of all, the literature needs to be supplemented, some research results are poorly presented and discussed, the introduction and discussion of the results should be strengthened. Moreover, I believe that the work is important and it is worth considering it for publication after corrections.

Detailed comments:

1. The abstract and keywords are correct and refer to the content presented in the manuscript.

2. The literature review should be supplemented in the introductory part and discussion of the results achieved. In the introduction, I suggest adding studies on BEV and PHEV vehicles, e.g.: https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093120;

and vehicle charging issues including from renewable sources: https://doi.org/10.3390/en17051264.

3. The methodological part describes the procedure well. Where did the source data for the simulation come from, did the authors perform their own real experiments?

4. The authors present the research results well, but the description of the results should be slightly reorganized. Please move Table 2 and Fig. 8 to line: 278.

5. The conclusions are correct and refer to the content presented in the manuscript, the stated goals and further directions of research in this area.

6. Please also review your work for minor editing errors.

Thank you!

Author Response

Comment 1: The article concerns the issue of operating and charging battery electric vehicles. The results showed significant potential for energy savings and increased charging speeds through optimal scheduling of charging stops, pre-conditioning scheduling, cost-adapted temperature management thresholds and consideration of driver behavior. The work is interesting and the presented results bring new information to the issue of electric vehicles and battery operation. First of all, the literature needs to be supplemented, some research results are poorly presented and discussed, the introduction and discussion of the results should be strengthened. Moreover, I believe that the work is important and it is worth considering it for publication after corrections.

Response 1: Thank you for the positive feedback and comments regarding the publication. We apologize should the presentation of the results have been lacking and have edited the manuscript accordingly with more discussion of the results and references. Further comments are addressed in detail below.

 

Comment 2: The abstract and keywords are correct and refer to the content presented in the manuscript.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for the positive feedback.

 

Comment 3: The literature review should be supplemented in the introductory part and discussion of the results achieved. In the introduction, I suggest adding studies on BEV and PHEV vehicles, e.g.: https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093120 and vehicle charging issues including from renewable sources: https://doi.org/10.3390/en17051264

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for the feedback regarding the literature review and the suggested articles. We agree that the literature review was sparse and have added additional references. Upon reading the proposed articles, we have, however, decided against including these specific suggestions despite them being interesting contributions to the field, as the first paper appears to be specific towards electrification in the context of vehicle automation, and the second article appears to focus on dimensioning photovoltaic systems for electric vehicle fleet charging. These topics, in our opinion, exceed the scope of electrochemical model-based fast-charging and preconditioning strategies within single electric vehicles. We have also extended the discussion sections with more references to previous studies. We hope this addresses the above point to your satisfaction.

 

Comment 4: The methodological part describes the procedure well. Where did the source data for the simulation come from, did the authors perform their own real experiments?

Response 4:  We thank the reviewer for the positive comment. The battery model used in this paper is a commercially available proprietary model by the company Batemo, which was used for all simulations in the study. However, in previous studies, we have also worked with an open-source electrochemical battery model (SPM) for a different cell and compared both, which can be used analogously:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2022.232586
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2022.105951
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2024.110968

The thermal parameters for the modeled vehicle were measured from a Tesla Model 3, which is detailed in a previous publication: https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj15060268.

We will furthermore also publish the simulation raw data for this paper via mediaTUM to provide more transparency. The data can be viewed during the review under the following link:

Link: https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/1750774
Login: reviewer-access-06
Pass: DmK18.9Ex*!ChPq$pRb

 

Comment 5: The authors present the research results well, but the description of the results should be slightly reorganized. Please move Table 2 and Fig. 8 to line: 278.

Response 5:  We agree that the previous layout was suboptimal and have made the suggested changes.

 

Comment 6: The conclusions are correct and refer to the content presented in the manuscript, the stated goals and further directions of research in this area.

Response 6:  We thank the reviewer for the positive feedback.

 

Comment 7: Please also review your work for minor editing errors

Response 7: We acknowledge some minor editing errors and have reworked the article regarding layout, as well as had it checked by a commercial proofreading software and a native speaker. We hope the quality is now satisfactory.

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

thank you for the changes you made to the manuscript and the satisfactory responses to the comments included in the review. I am glad that the authors took and supplemented the literature seriously, I hope that the works I mentioned will be an inspiration and may be helpful in the authors' subsequent work in the area of ​​​​the development of electric vehicles. The manuscript in its current form is very well prepared, all doubts have been clarified, therefore I currently recommend the work for printing.

Thank you