Design Analysis of Heat Sink Using the Field Synergy Principle and Multitarget Response Surface Methodology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Optimization analysis of heat sink using field synergy principle and multi-target response surface methodology

Dear author, the topic you address in your paper falls within the objectives of the Journal Energies. On the other hand, here are some points that you should consider before a possible publication of your research

You should emphasize more on the novelty of your work, in my opinion, both the abstract and the introduction do not have the elements to know if the research is novel or not.

1. The abstract does not reflect which are the most outstanding results of their work and should be rewritten.

2. The authors state the advantages of using the models used, but never indicate what the limitations of these models are and how the results obtained would be affected.

3. The introduction does not address papers where the methods and models used have been used, nor does it indicate which are the outstanding results obtained by the researchers. By rewriting the introduction, you will be able to highlight the novelty of your research.

4. It should give a more detailed description of the mathematical model, governing equations, assumptions applied, convergence criteria, type and quality of mesh used. A scheme where you can observe the boundary conditions indicated in Table 1 would be very useful.

5. There is no explanation for figures 4(a)-(c).

6. In your conclusions you indicate two percentages; how did you obtain these data if they are not reflected in the results?

7. Line 227. The heat dissipation effect's superiority must be demonstrated. Then, in the abstract, how can you say that the dimensions of an ideal heat sink are the ones you state in it?

8. The conclusions should be completely rewritten to express the general findings and not the details.

9. Figure 4(c) is the same as the one shown in your paper published in Results in Physics 2020 (Figure 2b). You should mention how it differs from what you present in this paper.

10. Should add a section on nomenclature.

Kind regards

Author Response

Response to the reviewer’s comments:

1. Please refer to the abstract of the revised manuscript.
2. In section 3.3 Optimization analysis, the authors include a more detailed description of the simulation model shown on page 4, line 144 to page 5, line 166 of the revised manuscript.
3. In section 1. Introduction, the authors include a more detailed description of the key articles shown on page 1, line 27 to line 38 of the revised manuscript. The new cited article has also been included in the amended reference [7] to [11]. The novel work is shown on from page 2, line 51 to line 63 of the revised manuscript.
4. Please refer to section 2 Methodology of the revised manuscript.
5. Please refer to section 3.4 Results discussion of the revised manuscript.
6. Please refer to section 3.4 Results discussion of the revised manuscript.
7. Indicated as the revised manuscript.
8. Indicated as the revised manuscript.
9. The new figures are added to Fig. 6(a) to Fig. 6(c) of the revised manuscript.
10. Indicated as the revised manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work presents a lot of flaws that make it unsuitable for publication:

1. The originality of the work is not stated. 

2. There are no related works in the introduction.

3. The analysis of the mathematical model on page 2 is not precise. What about the diffusive term in equation 3? What about the equation in line 75? It seems incomplete.

4. The physical situation is poorly explained.

5. Table 1 is a mixture of information, including thermal properties, simulation parameters, and boundary conditions. Therefore, this is not the best way of presenting this information. 

6. The role of the simulations is not clear. The sentence in line 112, "The finite element method is then used to analyze the location of the factors," is unclear. 

7. The way how results are presented is poor.

8. The concept of field synergy is unclear. 

9. How the design of the heat sink is revolutionary. This conclusion is not based on the results. 

 

Author Response

Response to the reviewer’s comments:

1. The novel work is shown on page 2, line 51 to line 63 of the revised manuscript.
2. In section 1. Introduction, the authors include a more detailed description of the key articles shown on page 1, line 27 to line 38 of the revised manuscript. The new cited article has also been included in the amended reference [7] to [11].
3. Add on equation (5) ~ equation (7).
4. In section 3.2 Boundary conditions, the authors include a more detailed description of the simulation model shown on page 5, line 159 to line 166 of the revised manuscript.
5. Please refer to section 2.1 Field synergy principle of the revised manuscript.
6. Please refer to section 3 optimization of the revised manuscript.
7. The new figures are added to Fig. 6(a) to Fig. 6(c) of the revised manuscript.
8. Please refer to section 2.1 Field synergy principle of the revised manuscript.
9. Please refer to the section 4 conclusion of the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript in its current form is not suitable for publication and requires major revisions:

-The abstract misses some key elements that make the subject clearer to the readers. Please consider rewriting the abstract as this section is of high importance. As your work is mainly about "multi-target response surface methodology", it is better to start with this methodology and extend it in a line.

-line 13 3.15 percent => 3.15%

-line 14 2.28 percent => 2.28%

-The introduction misses key articles in the field and is too small for a scientific paper. Please extend this part.

-The novelty of the work is missing. In the last paragraph of the introduction section, you should highlight your novelty.

-line 60: How do you define the Nu, Pr, and Re numbers? Please clearly explain it.

-Fig.1: Please include the dimension of the heat sink

-Why did you use the k-ω model?

-You must clearly include the "uncertainty analysis" with the equation and the values used in the equation. For example, the precision of the test equipment, etc...

-How did you validate your results?

-The quality of Figure4)a,b,c is low. Please replace them with a figure with more quality. Also, the legend of the figures is hard to read.

-The conclusions section misses the key sentences about what you have done and what you have achieved.

-Please provide the section: Future work.

Author Response

Response to the reviewer’s comments:

1. Erased the results.
2. Erased the results.
3. In section 1. Introduction, the authors include a more detailed description of the key articles shown on page 1, line 27 to line 38 of the revised manuscript. The new cited article has also been included in the amended reference [7] to [11].
4. The novel work is shown on from page 2, line 51 to line 63 of the revised manuscript.
5. Add on equation (5) ~ equation (7).
6. Indicated as the revised manuscript.
7. In section 3.2 Boundary conditions, the authors include a more detailed description of the simulation model shown on page 5, line 159 to line 166 of the revised manuscript.
8. Please refer to the section 3.3 experiment measuring of the revised manuscript.
9. Please refer to the section 3.3 experiment measuring of the revised manuscript.
10. The new figures are added to Fig. 6(a) to Fig. 6(c) of the revised manuscript.
11. Please refer to the section 4 conclusion of the revised manuscript.
12. Future work is not given in this manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this paper, the authors conducted an optimization analysis of heat sink using field synergy principle and multi-target response surface methodology. The research topic is meaningful, but the content of the paper is insufficient, and lack of experimental verification. The whole manuscript is like a simple case study, lacking in in-depth mechanism analysis and law condensation. The main problems are as follows: 

 

Comments:

(1) The literature review is too brief to explain the research status of this topic.

(2) The research object was not described and presented clearly.

(3) The numerical simulation method has not been verified by experiments.

(4) Numerical calculation method, grid generation method, grid independence verification are missing.

(5) The analysis of the influence law of each parameter was not carried out, and the interpretation of the optimal results was lacking.

(6) Please arrange the reference format according to the requirements of the journal.

Author Response

Response to the reviewer’s comments:

1. In the section 1.Introduction, the authors include a more detailed description of the key articles shown on from page 1, line 27 to line 38 of the revised manuscript. The new cited article has also been included to the amended reference [7] to [11].
2. The novel work shown on from page 2, line 51 to line 63 of the revised manuscript.
3. Please refer to the section 3.3 experiment measuring of the revised manuscript.
4. In the section 3.2 Boundary conditions, the authors include a more detailed description of the simulation model shown on from page 5, line 159 to page 6, line 180 of the revised manuscript.
5. Please refer to the section 3.4 Results discussion of the revised manuscript.
6. Indicated as the revised manuscript.
7. Please refer to the abstract and section 2.2 Response surface methodology of the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors were attentive to the reviewers' suggestions and comments.

Finally, before possible publication, they revised the wording of their work.

Regards

Author Response

 The manuscript was revised following all the comments from the reviewers.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Your responses to my comments are acceptable. 

Author Response

 The manuscript was revised following all the comments from the reviewers.

Reviewer 4 Report

Some important issues in the manuscript have not been modified. Although the experimental measurement content has been added, the experimental results are unclear, and there is no comparison between the numerical results and the experimental results. At the same time, the number of grids in the numerical model is small, whether it can meet the accuracy requirements of simulation? Also the grid independence verification has not been carried out. In addition, the R2 value of the response surface of Y2 is only 67%. Is the optimization result accurate? Therefore, the current version of the manuscript is not recommended to be accepted.

Author Response

Response to the reviewer’s comments:

1. Regarding the grid quality and independence verification, please refer the line 191 to line 193 in Table 2 of the revised manuscript.
2. Regarding the R2 value of the response surface of Y2 is only 67%, the mean temperature of the fins and the overall mean field synergy angle are intended to be low using the multi-objective response surface method. The gradient and velocity field changes are not coordinated, which prevents the velocity field change from keeping up with the temperature difference between the fins. As a result, the velocity field change is unable to keep up with the temperature difference, resulting in a higher field synergy angle of the fins in the second half. Maybe the case study is not the optimization result, but the distribution of the field synergy angle from the bottom to the top of the fin in the heat sink design is distributed from a novel viewpoint. Finally, we also change the title to “Design analysis of heat sink using field synergy principle and multi-target response surface methodology”.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is acceptable.

Author Response

The revised manuscript is rechecked by a native English-speaking colleague.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf