A Systematic Review of Energy Management Systems for Battery/Supercapacitor Electric Vehicle Applications
, Awang Jusoh 2, Nik Din Muhamad 2 and Raweewan Lengkayan 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The authors have incorporated all my suggestions. Therefore, in my opinion the manuscript may be accepted for the publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
1- In the Abstract: Check this “Non-isolate DC-DC converter converter connected to SC…”
2-Quality of Fig. 3 could be better, due to weak lines.
3- In the manuscript, control strategies for energy control management and features of energy management strategies are well organized and described. Discussion on major findings should be extended based on the future expectations that implementing HESS for EV.
4- In addition to 3, critical points to take into consideration to implement suitable HESS for EV could be given in the conclusion section.
Author Response
Reply reviewer 2
- In the Abstract: Check this “Non-isolate DC-DC converter converter connected to SC…”
Reply: The word has been corrected to Non-isolated….
2-Quality of Fig. 3 could be better, due to weak lines.
Reply: The intensity of Figure 3 has been improved.
3- In the manuscript, control strategies for energy control management and features of energy management strategies are well organized and described. Discussion on major findings should be extended based on the future expectations that implementing HESS for EV.
Reply: It is mentioned in Section 6, Discussion on significant findings of energy management strategies, and it is mentioned again in the last paragraph of the conclusion.
4- In addition to 3, critical points to take into consideration to implement suitable HESS for EV could be given in the conclusion section.
Reply: We have provide in the last paragraph of the conclusion.
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
This paper presents a thorough evaluation of the energy management system. However, some descriptions are not clear. Some revisions are necessary in the manuscript.
1. It is suggested that the specific algorithm in Figure 5 should be further supplemented or replaced with ellipses.
2. The logic of the review is not clear enough. Please improve it further.
3. Please explain what the different colors in the text represent.
4. Figure 2 contains a lot of information, and it is recommended that the description be further supplemented.
5. In the paper, authors have focused on energy management system. The comparison of different energy management methods needs to be analyzed, which can refer to：
[a] IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf., vol. 15, no. 14, pp. 2008-2022, 2019.
[b] Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 277-285, 2022
[c] CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 1026-1040, 2021
No comments.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 3
- It is suggested that the specific algorithm in Figure 5 should be further supplemented or replaced with ellipses.
Reply: As requested by reviewers previously, the ellipses of specific algorithms have been arranged in Table 2, where Table 2 and Figure 5 can work together. Figure 5 is intended to provide readers with an overall picture.
- The logic of the review is not clear enough. Please improve it further.
Reply: The logic in Figure 1 is corrected based on evidence and actions for the top and bottom blocks.
- Please explain what the different colors in the text represent.
Reply: The colors indicate that previous reviewers requested correction, but they have been removed.
- Figure 2 contains a lot of information, and it is recommended that the description be further supplemented.
Reply: The sentences in the paragraph before Figure 2 have been added for declaration the creation of the map “The minimum number of occurrences of a keyword was set to one in the parameters used to create the map shown in Figure 2. Thus, the largest total link strength of 211 relevant keywords was established throughout the previous decade.” The keywords of 211 are important in terms of explanation for locating gaps, prospects, trends, and so on for the literature review. As a result, the image remains a mess.
- In the paper, authors have focused on energy management system. The comparison of different energy management methods needs to be analyzed, which can refer to：
[a] IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf., vol. 15, no. 14, pp. 2008-2022, 2019.
[b] Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 277-285, 2022
[c] CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 1026-1040, 2021
Reply: In the final paragraph, we summarized the main contribution of the review and compared it to other techniques, as well as recommended references for readers.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors looked up issues and evolution in the field of battery thermal management for EV applications. The study also explored the various aspects of a hybrid energy storage system, which combines a battery and a supercapacitor. The paper is well written and presented. However, some corrections need to be addressed:
1. The authors are suggested to add the problem statement supported by the research gap and the novel approach of the present research work in the last paragraph of the introduction section.
2. The texts in figure 10 are not clear. Improve the image quality.
3. English language of the paper needs a basic repair. I found several grammatical errors and sometimes fewer clear sentences. You may need to go through it with a native person or online resources.
4. If possible, the authors need to add the comparative discussion on various energy management control strategies studied for EV in tabulated form for better understanding
5. On page number 21, the subheading number is missing for “Neural network control strategy”
6. Add a separate section as Major findings in the proposed review and elaborate on the areas that need improvement.
7. Rewrite the conclusion. Improve the conclusion by demonstrating the significance of research by pointing out the problems in the introduction and finally offering a solution for them. Pointwise conclusions are good for better understanding.
Reviewer 2 Report
This review is a hot topic today, but overall organisation of the paper is not good at all. Here is my suggestions:
1. Abstract section sounds a bit simple and says everything is inside the paper. A short brief of specific conclusions should be given here.
2. Motivation of the study should be clearly given. I am not sure that this study has been clearly focused the problem or current situation.
3. Due to being a review, it is better to express what’s done instead of citing like: [15], [17], [31], [51], [59], [60], [61], [66]. Avoid this type of citing.
4. The review has a lot of topic but it is really hard to combine them. Some parts like a book chapter and so much fundamental info. Some part are not well-linked to other topics like “Modelling of Electric Vehicle”.
5. Literature survey is insufficient and are not up to date. Also most of them older than 5 years.
6. I recommend that this review could be only focused on the “Energy Management Control Strategy” or HESS.
Reviewer 3 Report
The contribution of the work is insignificant.
- The paper is missing a scientific approach (how this survey is conducted? what is the methodology?)
- A comparison with the related published survey works is missing. Also, the limitations of this work are missing.
- Tables for comparison, and for summarizing the existing works are needed.
- Challenges and future research directions are missing.
- Some references are not accessible, e.g., [20]. The format of references is not consistent.
- Figures are getting directly from other works. The authors should re-draw them. Also, the quality of the Figures is poor.
Reviewer 4 Report
The introduction of each part of the article is relatively comprehensive. First, the paper introduces the battery and supercapacitor energy storage for electric vehicles. However, this part is rather basic and somewhat redundant. It is suggested to be appropriately deleted. Second, the advantages and disadvantages of different energy conversion structures are introduced. Finally, the rule-based and optimization control strategies are introduced. The detailed comments are as follows:
1. For the different types of batteries, their characteristics should be described in more detail. The proportion of different types of batteries used in the current EV market can be consulted to supplement.
2. It is recommended to add more explanation about why vehicle can still be operated after failures.
3. A summary of the advantages and disadvantages or applicability of the two types of control methods can be added at the end of 8.1.2.
4. There are many researches related to reinforcement learning with applications in hybrid electric vehicles. It is better recommended to add more explanations.
5. There are many writing mistakes. Please make a proof reading.
