A Surrogate Model for the Rapid Evaluation of Electromagnetic-Thermal Effects under Humid Air Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the authors proposed a method to estimate the electromagnetic and thermal effects of electronic devices under humid condition and also demonstrated the effect using fine element simulation.  Performance of electronics devices are affected by humidity which is a known issue. Temperature and humidity can change the material conductivity which in turn can change the device performance. An accurate prediction model would be very important in terms of device performance.

However, a few issues need to be resolved before the manuscript could be published.

 

1)      Is there any specific reason behind using the current continuity equation instead of the Maxwell equations?

2)      A benchmarking experiment would be helpful to verify the results for the proposed method.

3)      In Fig. 11, why the error % higher during first few seconds.

4)      From the manuscript, it not clear if the authors developed the “FEM” tool or they just used the FEM method.

5)      A mesh comparison between FEM and Comsol would be helpful.

6)      A comparative study between laminar and turbulent would be interesting.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing is required. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks a lot for your advice and questions and the following is my reply.

1. Is there any specific reason behind using the current continuity equation instead of the Maxwell equations?

Response：

The current continuity equation is more suitable for solving static and quasi-static problems, and it simplifies the computational complexity. It is well-suited for the problems discussed in this paper and effectively incorporates boundary conditions for the electrical potential. Therefore, we employ the current continuity equation for our solution.

2. A benchmarking experiment would be helpful to verify the results for the proposed method.

Response：

Thank you for your valuable comments. We understand the importance of benchmarking experiments to verify the results of the proposed method. However, due to current constraints in our facility, we are unable to conduct physical experiments.

3. In Fig. 11, why the error % higher during first few seconds.

Response：

Due to the decoupling of thermal and electrical simulations, updates are not synchronized at every timestep. Instead, synchronization occurs only at certain multiples of the shorter electrical simulation timestep. This can lead to insufficiently frequent data updates in the early stages of thermal simulation. Additionally, the influence of initial conditions is more pronounced at the beginning of the simulation, and these conditions may not be entirely accurate or reflective of actual scenarios. As the simulation progresses, the model gradually adjusts and better reflects the true thermal behavior, thereby reducing the errors over time.

4. From the manuscript, it not clear if the authors developed the “FEM” tool or they just used the FEM method.

Response：

In this study, we use the FEM method to simulate the multi-physical problem.

5. A mesh comparison between FEM and Comsol would be helpful.

Response：

Thanks for your suggestion and the mesh comparison is added into the script.

6. A comparative study between laminar and turbulent would be interesting.

Response：

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We understand the importance and interest of conducting a comparative study between laminar and turbulent flows. However, due to the fact that thermal properties (such as thermal conductivity and specific heat capacity) in turbulent conditions can have significant changes and accurately simulating these changes requires extensive experimental data and highly precise models. This is challenging to achieve under our current research conditions, and the thermal properties are difficult to simulate using relatively quantifiable formulas.

Our existing model has been validated under laminar flow conditions, and it is able to accurately simulate thermal properties and related heat transfer phenomena in this context. Therefore, we have chosen to focus on research under laminar flow conditions to ensure the accuracy of the results.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Editorial comments:
- When writing physical quantities, there should be a space between the number and the unit.
See the SI brochure at https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/ in Sec. 5.4.3 "Formatting the value of a quantity" that clearly states: "The numerical value always precedes the unit, and a space is always used to separate the unit from the number."
- See the SI brochure at https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/ in Sec. 5.2 "Unit symbols" that clearly states: "Unit symbols are printed in Roman (upright) type regardless of the type used in the surrounding text.".
- A sentence should never directly start with a symbol.
- There are some klemps and plenks in the text, please remove them. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klempen and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenken for details.
- Figures like diagrams, plots, circuit schematics, block diagrams, flow charts and other line art graphics should be inserted as a vector graphic, not as a raster graphic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_graphics and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_graphics for a discussion on this.
- The reviewer suggests to use the very powerful TikZ package to create the flow chart directly in LaTeX. See the examples at https://www.overleaf.com/read/pqhvynsmmpbp or https://www.overleaf.com/read/fwytrpgnsxcn .
- Indexes or superscripts in mathematical formulas that contain abbreviations (like 'abs' for 'absolute value' in P_abs) are always written in Roman type, upright letters, not in slanted letters (Italics). See: https://www.iupac.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ICTNS-On-the-use-of-italic-and-roman-fonts-for-symbols-in-scientific-text.pdf
- A variable name or symbol name should not consist of more than one letter. The problem with symbols of several letters like Pr for the Prandtl number is that it is not clear if 'PrR' is the same as 'P * r' in classical formula typesetting. If a symbol of several letters has to be used for any reason, Roman type (upright) letters should be used for clarification.
in LaTeX: \operatorname{Pr}
- Variables in equations and in the running text should be typeset in math mode, i.e. in Italics (slanted letters).
- Please improve and simplify the number format (omitting the scientific numeric notation using 'E' or 'e' and replacing it by a real decimal power or power of ten).
- Please insert a non-breaking space between 'Fig.' and the following number to avoid a line break at this position, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-breaking_space.
- Fig. 4: Please add a light grid to the plots to improve the visibility of the data points.
- The International System of Units and ISO 31-0 standard prescribe a space between the number and percent sign in line with the general practice of using a non-breaking space between a numerical value and its corresponding unit of measurement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percent_sign
- In the list of references, some paper titles are typeset e.g. as 'Influence of Antenna Characteristics on MIMO Systems' while others are typeset as 'Influence of antenna characteristics on MIMO systems'. This should be harmonized.
- The punctuation must be corrected. In general, there is never a space before a comma, colon, semicolon or period, but always after these punctuation marks.

Scientific questions:
- The displayed temperature differences in Fig. 3 are super small. Is this reasonable?
- Thermal processes usually have a quite long time constant, at least im comparison with electrical or electromagnetic processes, which usually have a very short time constant. Would it make sense to decouple the electrical and thermal simulation from each other and just not synchronize them each and every time step, but just at certain multiples of the shorter time step of the elecrical simulation with each other, in order to same computational effort?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please remove the klemps.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer:

Dear reviewer, thank you for all your advice. I have revised my manuscript according to your comments and the reply to your scientific questions are as follows.

1. The displayed temperature differences in Fig. 3 are super small. Is this reasonable?

Response：

Thanks for your response and the small temperature differences displayed in Figure 3 are a result of the boundary conditions and simulation time set for this specific case study, which lead to minimal temperature variations between the high and low temperature zones.

2. Thermal processes usually have a quite long time constant, at least in comparison with electrical or electromagnetic processes, which usually have a very short time constant. Would it make sense to decouple the electrical and thermal simulation from each other and just not synchronize them each and every time step, but just at certain multiples of the shorter time step of the electrical simulation with each other, in order to same computational effort?

Response：

Thank you for your valuable advice. In this paper, the thermal process and electrical process calculations are decoupled, with the time step of the electrical process being smaller than that of the thermal process.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for answering all the questions. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing is required. 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback. I have revised the language and formatting of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Fig. 1: Figures like diagrams, plots, circuit schematics, block diagrams, flow charts and other line art graphics should be inserted as a vector graphic, not as a raster graphic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_graphics and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_graphics for a discussion on this.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

List of references: The punctuation must be corrected. In general, there is never a space before a comma, colon, semicolon or period, but always after these punctuation marks.

Author Response

We appreciate the constructive advice that has significantly helped in enhancing the quality and clarity of our manuscript.

The following are the detailed responses to reviewers:

1. 1: Figures like diagrams, plots, circuit schematics, block diagrams, flow charts and other line art graphics should be inserted as a vector graphic, not as a raster graphic.

Response:

We have replaced Fig.1 with a vector graphic and inserted it into the new manuscript and we have checked that all the figures of our manuscript are vector graphics. Thank you so much for you suggestion.

2. List of references: The punctuation must be corrected. In general, there is never a space before a comma, colon, semicolon or period, but always after these punctuation marks.

Response:

        We have corrected the punctuation in the reference list and thanks a lot for your careful comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Editorial comments:
- The proper spelling of the Soviet mathematician and an engineer is 'Galerkin', not 'Galergin'.
- Before opening brackets, there should be a space, otherwise it is a klemp (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klempen).
- A sentence should never directly start with a symbol.
- When writing physical quantities, there should be a space between the number and the unit.
See the SI brochure at https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/ in Sec. 5.4.3 "Formatting the value of a quantity" that clearly states: "The numerical value always precedes the unit, and a space is always used to separate the unit from the number."
- See the SI brochure at https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/ in Sec. 5.2 "Unit symbols" that clearly states: "Unit symbols are printed in Roman (upright) type regardless of the type used in the surrounding text.".
- Please insert a (non-breaking) space between 'Fig.' and the following number in the running text. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-breaking_space on how to create a non-breaking space.
- Fig. 8: Please add a light grid to the plots to improve the visibility of the data points
- Figs. 13 b) and 18 b): Please add a light grid to the plots to improve the visibility of the data points.
- Figs. 13 and 18: Figures like diagrams, plots, circuit schematics, block diagrams, flow charts and other line art graphics should be inserted as a vector graphic, not as a raster graphic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_graphics and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_graphics for a discussion on this.
- Fig. 17: The font size in this figure is unnecessarily large. It should be reduced so that the font size in the figure matches the font size of the surrounding text.
- Figs. 8, 10, 11, 12 and 15: The font size in this figure is unnecessarily large. It should be reduced so that the font size in the figure matches the font size of the surrounding text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some klemps and plenks in the text, please remove them. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klempen and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenken for details.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your detailed review and valuable comments on our manuscript.

Below, we address each point specifically:

1. The proper spelling of the Soviet mathematician and an engineer is 'Galerkin', not 'Galergin'.

Response：

We have corrected the spelling of the name "Galerkin" throughout the manuscript. We apologize for the oversight in our initial submission.

2. Before opening brackets, there should be a space, otherwise it is a klemp (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klempen).

Response：

We have now inserted a space before all opening brackets to comply with proper formatting standards and avoid any "klemps."

3. A sentence should never directly start with a symbol.

Response：

We have revised the text to ensure that no sentence starts with a symbol, maintaining a clear and professional presentation.

4. When writing physical quantities, there should be a space between the number and the unit. See the SI brochure at https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/ in Sec. 5.4.3 "Formatting the value of a quantity" that clearly states: "The numerical value always precedes the unit, and a space is always used to separate the unit from the number."

Response：

All instances in the manuscript now correctly place a space between the numerical value and its unit, adhering to the guidelines in the SI brochure.

5. See the SI brochure at https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/ in Sec. 5.2 "Unit symbols" that clearly states: "Unit symbols are printed in Roman (upright) type regardless of the type used in the surrounding text."

Response：

We have ensured that all unit symbols are now presented in Roman (upright) type, consistent with the standard typographic rules.

6. Please insert a (non-breaking) space between 'Fig.' and the following number in the running text.

Response：

We have inserted non-breaking spaces between 'Fig.' and the figure numbers throughout the manuscript to enhance the text alignment and readability.

7. Fig. 8: Please add a light grid to the plots to improve the visibility of the data points. Figs. 13 b) and 18 b): Please add a light grid to the plots to improve the visibility of the data points.

Response：

Light grids have been added to the plots in Fig. 8, Fig. 13b, and Fig. 18b to improve the visibility of data points as suggested.

8. Fig. 13 and Fig. 18: Figures like diagrams, plots, circuit schematics, block diagrams, flow charts and other line art graphics should be inserted as a vector graphic, not as a raster graphic.

Response：

We have converted all diagrams, plots, and other line art graphics to vector format to ensure better quality and scalability.

9. Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 11, Fig. 12, Fig. 15, and Fig. 17: The font size in this figure is unnecessarily large. It should be reduced so that the font size in the figure matches the font size of the surrounding text.

Response：

The font size in Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 11, Fig. 12, Fig. 15, and Fig. 17 has been adjusted to match the font size of the surrounding text for a uniform appearance.

10. There are some klemps and plenks in the text, please remove them.

Response：

We have removed all unnecessary spaces around punctuation (klemps and plenks) to ensure the text meets professional writing standards.