Estimation of SMPS’ Conducted Emission According to CISPR Standards
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The subject is of great application interest and there are few articles on the subject. Unfortunately, the article is too tied to the software used for simulations and therefore loses generality.
Some results should be studied in depth, two softwares are used to estimate the circuit parameters:
1) a quasi-static method which has the advantage of correctly evaluating the low frequency behavior;
2) a full wave method which, as widely shown in the literature, has difficulty in estimating this. behavior.
This issue can be see easily in the comparison with the measurements showed in the paper.
The authors should investigate this aspect which is critical in the generation of an equivalent circuit, being a very delicate point it is not possible to limit oneself to the use of commercial software, the quality of the simulation affects all the results shown.
Some typos are present, for example: Fig.1 & Fig.3 circuits; pg.5 row 128
Some parameters definition are missing, for example Pg. 15
Try to clarify the sentence at Pg. 4 "Because the components have physical dimensions, it is merely impossible 116 to achieve a perfect layout."
As a general suggestion, the quality of the article could be greatly improved if the authors made an effort to abstract the results obtained regardless of the software used.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all thank you very much for reading and providing the important feedback regarding the paper submitted. I am sure that this feedback will significantly increase the paper value.
Based on your feedback following changes were introduced:
- line 454 (pg. 19) added description that emphasize the correct equivalent circuit parameters and it's importance for the final result
- Typos were corrected
- line 126 (pg. 5) Description about physical dimensions was clarified
- Added abbreviations list on the beginning of the paper
We have focused more on the practical implementation of proposed workflow and provided guidelines on how to use the most popular commercial software tools. Moreover we have provided/explained how each tool works so that the reader could choose which one he prefers to use to conduct similar simulations. According to our knowledge ANSYS is the leading provider of such simulation tools and there are only few other providers that can combine both 3D and time domain simulations (COMSOL, CST and ANSYS). However the generalisation of this work into theoretical work could be a great topic for next papers
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper describes the approach of utilizing and estimate the switched mode power supply's conducted emission as a standalone component using simulation tools using only the power supply being designed. The article is well interesting approach, but it may be let down at is its current form due to lack of strong flow or presentation as following:
- Authors decided to use the approach found in the literature [6] and introduced necessary changes to meet the requirement to obtain the conducted emission. Authors needs to highlight the specific changes were made. - An interpolating sweep between 0Hz and 100MHz was chosen for analysis But based on results frequency sweep 9kHz to 30MHz. A clarification of these mismatching ranges needs to be considered. - Table of comparison based on outcomes of this current work and related works in literature. This will enhance the work contribution. Especially in terms of efficiency, number of switches, frequency range, and so on, ......- Also, there are few minor comments to be considered as well such as: - List of abbreviation would make the article much clear. - The number of sub-sections of Test setup with ground reference plane and harness need to be corrected to 2.1.2. - Many figures need to be enhanced to be acceptable especially in terms of fonts such as figs 1, 4, 5, 6, 11, 18, and 19.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all thank you very much for reading and providing the important feedback regarding the paper submitted. I am sure that this feedback will significantly increase the paper value.
Based on your feedback following changes were introduced:
- line 89 (pg. 4) the list of changes introduced
- Typos were corrected
- line 251 (pg. 10) the frequency range limits of 3D analysis is better described in terms of the time domain analysis
- line 463 (pg. 19) The reason why results obtained by proposed paper could not be performed with other workflow from literature is described. The other reason, not mention in paper, is that source files for the simulations presented in other papers are not available hence it is not possible to recalculate them in the way that would be possible to compare.
- Abbreviation list is added on the beginning of the paper
- Line 150 (pg. 6) Number of sub-section corrected
- Figures quality was improved, divided to two if required
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is in my opinion ready for publication. I suggest to the authors to deepen the theoretical aspects and I hope in their future article on the subject.
