The Optimization of PEM Fuel-Cell Operating Parameters with the Design of a Multiport High-Gain DC–DC Converter for Hybrid Electric Vehicle Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I wanted to reject this article but I'm giving the authors a second chance.

 The authors must give the physical model of the battery and PEMFC.

The authors must give more information about Multilayer Feed-Forward Neural Networ, this part is empty.

The authors must explain the optimization of PEMFC operating parameters in this study.

The quality of the figures is poor.

The references are poor, this part must be completed.

The authors can use the references below:

Design Of High Voltage Pulse Generator With Back To Back Multilevel Boost Buck Converters Using Sic-Mosfet Switches, 2020 IEEE 15th International Conference of System of Systems Engineering (SoSE)

Application of Machine Learning in Optimizing Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells: A Review, ELSEVIER, Energy and AI, Volume 9, August 2022, 100170

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some modifications are needed.

Author Response

Please Find attached the author response sheet to reviewer comments - step by step answers

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a comprehensive investigation into the optimization of PEMFC operating parameters employing a Multilayer Feed-forward neural network, coupled with the design of a multiport high-gain DC-DC converter for hybrid electric vehicle applications. The incorporation of the SFO-based MPPT control technique to extract maximum power from PEMFC adds a notable advancement to the research. The authors conducted a thorough simulation study using the MATLAB/R2022a platform, providing an insightful validation of both the converter's performance and the SFO-based MPPT controller. The inclusion of a 0.2kW prototype model in the laboratory experiments further strengthens the credibility of the real-time test bench results, contributing to the overall robustness of the findings. After reading the manuscript several times, the reviewer found the following minor points need to be revised to make the paper qualified to be published in MDPI Sustainability:

 

1.       While the highlights of this research are adequately summarized in the paper's abstract, introduction, and conclusion, there is a lack of clarity regarding the novelty of the study. The research question is not explicitly defined in these sections, and the presentation of results that contribute to advancing current knowledge is also unclear.

 

2.       The resolution of certain figures, particularly Figure 3, is insufficient for clear readability.

 

3.       Several figures containing multiple graphs exhibit organizational issues. The absence of labeled subplots (e.g., a, b, c...) and simplistic captions detracts from clarity. Additionally, axis titles are not consistently and appropriately positioned, as observed in Figure 4.

 

4.       Distortions are evident in some figures, such as the stretching observed in Figure 5.

 

5.       Figure 17 lacks effective organization; charts sharing the same axis could be consolidated for improved clarity and presentation.

 

6.       Figure 12, while not requiring additional zooming, occupies an excessive amount of space in the manuscript without providing commensurate informational value. Consider optimizing the space utilization for improved manuscript conciseness.

 

7.       Several figures, including Figures 3 and 5, are not referenced within the draft.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I appreciate the effort put into your manuscript, however, there are areas where improvements in language quality could enhance the overall clarity and coherence of your work.

Author Response

Please Find attached the author response sheet to reviewer comments - step by step answers

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall paper looks okay but there are some points that needs improvement:

1- Abstract is too short with respect to problem or initial statement. Should be nice to explain the problem or about the choice of method a little more.

2- More references should be added to the article, at least 7 - 8. It would be nice to have some more references for similar cases where the parameters are optimized for electric vehicle. 

3- The figures are of poor quality and the text is blur in some of them. It would be nice to improve the figure quality. Also, would be nice to make the figures more simpler and not flashy.

4- The work needs more explanation and the results are needed to be defined more as there is no closure to the discussion.

5- Conclusion seems more like a summary of the paper. There is no inputs from the author regarding what have they gained from the research and towards which direction this research can be headed into. It would be nice to add some future research related to this and also give input or gains by the author in this section.

Author Response

Please Find attached the author response sheet to reviewer comments - step by step answers

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have answered all of my questions. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some modifications are needed. 

For example, in the conclusion part, the authors have to use "Hardware-in-the-loop".

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research investigates the optimization of 6 kW PEMFC operating parameters using the Neural Power software environment. Experimental data on varied operating parameters, output voltage, and output power were utilized to train a multilayer feed-forward neural network. Genetic algorithms were then applied to optimize the obtained results. The study highlights the significance of operating temperature in PEMFC performance, leading to the development of an MMPT controller for optimal power extraction under variable temperatures. After careful consideration, the reviewer deems the paper worthy of publication in MDPI Sustainability.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the suggested revisions.