Brief Comparison of High-Side Gate Drivers for Series Capacitor Buck Converters
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper introduces a floating high-side gate driver suited for driving high-side MOSFET/IGBT switch in series capacitor buck converter (SCB) family or converters with similar topological features.
1. This paper is so brief, even the abstract is not satisfactory. You should add more information to the abstract.
2. The background is not enough. As a paper, you should have at least 15 citations. Please add more citations, for example, the application of the gate drive. Besides the converter application, the high-side gate driver is also important in solid-state circuit breakers. The paper “Intelligent Gate Drive for Cryogenic Solid-state Circuit Breaker with Current Limitation Capability for Aviation Application” can be a good choice.
State-of-the-art for gate drive is also important, for example, “Data-driven model-based smart control of intelligent gate drive for converter operational performance improvement”
Please make sure you have a comprehensive literature review.
3. The contribution of this paper is not that clear. Please rewrite the introduction part. You should involve more about the contribution and innovations of this paper.
4. Please show the prototype of the gate drive. You should also show the prototype detail information in a table.
5. Please also compare with traditional gate drive topology, to verify your performance.
6. Overall, this paper is so brief. Please do a deep modification.
normal
Author Response
Thank you for effort spent to comment on our paper!
Authors response follows.
Firstly, let us say that the paper is intended to be a type of a brief/letter/short publication, Accordingly, it was written in brevity. As one of the reviewers commented "longer is not necessarily better". Therefore, we would like to keep it concise.
We did our best to address all the comments to clarify the text. A significant portion of the article was rewritten, revised, and rearranged.
We try to focus the reader that the issue of concern is the engineering design problem of the high side driver bias circuit and emphasize that the proposed schematic solution we've found works reliably and may be of a great help to practicing engineers in designing the SCB converters.
Since the students, that were involved in the project, had left the team, unfortunately, we do not have any the requested pictures of the experimental setup/converter to insert into the paper. However, its of lesser importance to the paper's message.
We hope that the revised paper answers all your concerns and in its current form is suitable for publication.
Thank you for your attention,
Authors.
Reviewer 2 Report
Reviewer Comments
Manuscript Title: Comparison of High-Side Gate Drivers for Series Capacitor Buck Converters
Manuscript Number: electronics-2539953
The manuscript under review is devoted to simulating and studying a floating high-side gate driver suited for driving high-side MOSFET/IGBT switch in series capacitor buck converter (SCB) family or converters with similar topological features.
The manuscript contains new and significant. The abstract clearly and accurately describes the content of the article. The literature review part contains distinct and rich references. The paper is nicely written and can be accepted but first, it should be improved. I have these comments:
1- It will be better if the authors describe the type of bucket-brigade charging of the boot capacitors as a solution.
2- From lines 70 to 76, I think that this paragraph is copied from the template of the journal. Please check it.
3- The experimental part is too short and the authors don’t explain or show the tested circuit.
4- More explanation of the experimental results and an interpretation of Figure 7 is needed.
5- Authors must compare their results with previous research works and must show the advantage of the proposed solution.
Finally, I recommend the paper for publication after resolving the major comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for effort spent to comment on our paper!
Authors response follows.
Firstly, let us say that the paper is intended to be a type of a brief/letter/short publication, Accordingly, it was written in brevity. As one of the reviewers commented "longer is not necessarily better". Therefore, we would like to keep it concise.
We did our best to address all the comments to clarify the text. A significant portion of the article was rewritten, revised, and rearranged.
We try to focus the reader that the issue of concern is the engineering design problem of the high side driver bias circuit and emphasize that the proposed schematic solution we've found works reliably and may be of a great help to practicing engineers in designing the SCB converters.
Since the students, that were involved in the project, had left the team, unfortunately, we do not have any the requested pictures of the experimental setup/converter to insert into the paper. However, its of lesser importance to the paper's message.
We hope that the revised paper answers all your concerns and in its current form is suitable for publication.
Thank you for your attention,
Authors.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear colleagues, the article seems interesting. I have some suggestions to improve it.
The abstract and the introduction (actually the hall paper) are a bit short. Maybe the article was initially proposed as a short letter, but now you don’t have a length limit. Longer is not always better, but please consider that your article may be read by people non-familiarized with the series capacitor converter, and then, if you can include more information or explanations, the article has better possibilities of being cited. You can extend the introduction with recent contributions to the topic, like “Analysis of the Input Current-Ripple in the Series-Capacitor Boost Converter” from IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics.
In the introduction, it seems you look for the origins of the series capacitor converter, and it seems there are two scientific teams that published conference papers related to it. To the best of my knowledge, the first reference related to this topic is the following patent:
[a] Jang, Y.; Jovanovic, M.M. Non-Isolated Power Conversion System Having Multiple Switching Power Converters. U.S. Patent 10/972,632, 26 October 2004.
Can you include a photo of the prototype? You are citing some applications note without including the authors. It is possible that some application notes from the industry don´t mention the authors. In this case, you can use the format for a website (Title of Site. Available online: URL (accessed on Day Month Year)) available on the mdpi electronics Word template. Avoid using a line in some editorials; that may mean the authors are the same as the manuscript. In other, it may mean the authors are the same as the previous reference, but it is always confusing.
Please update the references with a webpage. I found the updated link of your reference [7] is https://www.onsemi.com/pub/collateral/and9674-d.pdf. Please double-check them.
The English grammar is not that bad. Still, I have included some particular suggestions. Some are not incorrect but uncommon (the English revision is not exhaustive).
The abstract says:
“This article introduces a floating high side gate driver suited for driving high side MOSFET/IGBT switch in series capacitor buck converter (SCB) family or converters with similar topological features. First the problem of the high side driver in SCB is presented, then state of the art solutions is discussed, next, the proposed modified driver circuit is presented, its functionality is validated by simulation and experiment.”
- I suggest changing it for:
“This article introduces a floating high-side gate driver suitable for driving the high-side MOSFET/IGBT switch in the series capacitor buck converter (SCB) family or converters with similar topological features. First, the problem of the high-side driver in the SCB is presented, then state-of-the-art solutions are discussed. Next, the proposed modified driver circuit is presented, and its functionality is validated by simulation and experiment.”
Author Response
Thank you for effort spent to comment on our paper!
Authors response follows.
Firstly, let us say that the paper is intended to be a type of a brief/letter/short publication, Accordingly, it was written in brevity. As one of the reviewers commented "longer is not necessarily better". Therefore, we would like to keep it concise.
We did our best to address all the comments to clarify the text. A significant portion of the article was rewritten, revised, and rearranged.
We try to focus the reader that the issue of concern is the engineering design problem of the high side driver bias circuit and emphasize that the proposed schematic solution we've found works reliably and may be of a great help to practicing engineers in designing the SCB converters.
Since the students, that were involved in the project, had left the team, unfortunately, we do not have any the requested pictures of the experimental setup/converter to insert into the paper. However, its of lesser importance to the paper's message.
We hope that the revised paper answers all your concerns and in its current form is suitable for publication.
Thank you for your attention,
Authors.
Reviewer 4 Report
The work presented in this paper introduces a floating high-side gate driver designed to drive the high-side NMOS switch in series capacitor buck converters (SCB). The proposed driver utilizes a capacitive voltage lift circuit to overcome the challenges posed by the series capacitor in SCB topologies. Simulation and experimental results were conducted to validate the functionality of the proposed driver.
Feedback to Improve the Paper:
1. Introduction:
Expand the introduction to provide a more detailed motivation for the research and clearly define the problem the proposed driver aims to solve. Include a comprehensive review of existing literature related to high-side gate drivers in SCB topologies to better contextualize the proposed solution. Adding more references will strengthen the introduction and demonstrate a thorough understanding of the field.
2. Simulation and Experimental Setup:
In the "Simulation Results" section, include more specific details on the LTspice IV simulation parameters and assumptions used in the study. In the "Experimental Results" section, provide additional information on the hardware setup, measurement equipment, and test conditions to ensure reproducibility and transparency.
3. Visual Aids:
In Figure 2b, there is no need to put a cross to indicate that it does not work. Instead, simply stating that the existing configuration does not accommodate the high-side switch due to the voltage across the series capacitor (VS) blocking the diode (Db) and preventing recharging of the boot capacitor (Cb) will be sufficient.
4. Limitations and Assumptions:
Clearly state any limitations or assumptions made during the research. Discuss the impact of these limitations on the results and conclusions to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the proposed driver's performance.
5. Practical Relevance:
Highlight the practical applications and potential benefits of the proposed driver in real-world scenarios. Discuss its advantages over existing solutions and how it can improve power efficiency, reduce switching losses, or enhance the reliability of SCB converters.
6. Conclusion:
In the "Discussion and Conclusions" section, provide a more comprehensive analysis of the results and emphasize the practical significance of the proposed driver. Discuss the broader implications and potential future directions for research in this area.
7. More References:
Consider including more references in the introduction section when revising the paper. Additional references will provide further support for the background information and demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the related work in the field.
Decision:
Accept with Minor Revisions.
The paper presents a promising solution to the high-side gate driver issue in SCB topologies. The proposed driver's functionality is validated through simulation and experimentation. While the paper demonstrates merit, minor revisions are necessary to address the mentioned improvements and enhance its overall quality. Upon incorporating these revisions, the paper will make a valuable contribution to the field and is suitable for publication.
The quality of English language in the paper is good. The sentences are clear and coherent, making the content easy to understand. There are no significant issues or errors that hinder comprehension. However, some areas could benefit from minor improvements to enhance clarity and flow.
Specifically, consider reorganizing or breaking down longer sentences to improve readability. Additionally, ensure that all symbols and abbreviations used in equations and figures are clearly explained for readers' understanding.
Overall, the English language is well-presented, and with a few minor editing adjustments, the paper's quality will be further enhanced.
Author Response
Thank you for effort spent to comment on our paper!
Authors response follows.
Firstly, let us say that the paper is intended to be a type of a brief/letter/short publication, Accordingly, it was written in brevity. As one of the reviewers commented "longer is not necessarily better". Therefore, we would like to keep it concise.
We did our best to address all the comments to clarify the text. A significant portion of the article was rewritten, revised, and rearranged.
We try to focus the reader that the issue of concern is the engineering design problem of the high side driver bias circuit and emphasize that the proposed schematic solution we've found works reliably and may be of a great help to practicing engineers in designing the SCB converters.
Since the students, that were involved in the project, had left the team, unfortunately, we do not have any the requested pictures of the experimental setup/converter to insert into the paper. However, its of lesser importance to the paper's message.
We hope that the revised paper answers all your concerns and in its current form is suitable for publication.
Thank you for your attention,
Authors.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The introduction need more background about the importance of the gate driver
okay
Author Response
Thank you, we have improved the intro.
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors improved the paper but to better explain the experimental part, authors must include the requested pictures of the experimental converter. It is a must to show the readers the steps that led you to the results.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we have furthermore improved the paper. Re. the circuit picture, the students who built it have graduated and left, and (as I replied previously) we don't have the circuit, regretfully.
