Research on Crosstalk Calculation Methods of Installed Cables

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a solid research work, and the experimental results generally support the theoretical analysis. However, the following points require improvement before publication:

1. The statement in the Introduction that "the vast majority of EMC issues encountered in systems stem from interference coupling via cables" is an overstatement. The dominant coupling path for electromagnetic compatibility problems varies across different scenarios. For instance, in many cases, radiative coupling can be the primary mechanism. This claim should be tempered to reflect a more nuanced understanding.
2. The paper employs a lossless model, which is suitable for the lower frequency range. When discussing previous research methods in the Introduction, it would be beneficial to clarify whether these methods are also primarily applicable only to lower frequencies. A brief discussion contrasting the analytical approaches used at lower versus higher frequencies would provide a more comprehensive context for the research.
3. Regarding the decomposition of coupling paths, the authors should explicitly clarify the fundamental difference between their approach and the path analysis inherent in classical transmission line theory. Clearly stating this distinction is crucial for establishing the novelty of this specific contribution.
4. The results show good agreement with measurements up to 150 MHz. To enhance the practical impact of the work, the authors are encouraged to provide some discussion or insight into the specific engineering applications within this usable frequency band. Adding this perspective would be highly valuable for readers from industry.

Author Response

Comments 1:  The statement in the Introduction that "the vast majority of EMC issues encountered in systems stem from interference coupling via cables" is an overstatement. The dominant coupling path for electromagnetic compatibility problems varies across different scenarios. For instance, in many cases, radiative coupling can be the primary mechanism. This claim should be tempered to reflect a more nuanced understanding.

Response 1:     Thanks for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefor, I have modified the description related to system electromagnetic interference on page 2, line 47 to:

“Among common EMC issues in systems, interference coupling generated by cables is one of the primary factors.”

 

Comments 2:  The paper employs a lossless model, which is suitable for the lower frequency range. When discussing previous research methods in the Introduction, it would be beneficial to clarify whether these methods are also primarily applicable only to lower frequencies. A brief discussion contrasting the analytical approaches used at lower versus higher frequencies would provide a more comprehensive context for the research.

Response 2:     Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have incorporated your feedback and added the corresponding supplement to the research background of the transmission line model's high and low frequencies on page 3, line 94.

 

Comments 3:  Regarding the decomposition of coupling paths, the authors should explicitly clarify the fundamental difference between their approach and the path analysis inherent in classical transmission line theory. Clearly stating this distinction is crucial for establishing the novelty of this specific contribution.

Response 3:     Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the distinction between the coupling path in this paper and the inherent path of the classical transmission line on page 13, line 381: The crosstalk model constructed in this section builds upon the classical transmis-sion line crosstalk model by subdividing the two interference paths on the sensitive line into four distinct paths. This clarification of the interference paths for inter-line crosstalk enables better correspondence with the expressions for near-end and far-end responses.

 

Comments 4:  The results show good agreement with measurements up to 150 MHz. To enhance the practical impact of the work, the authors are encouraged to provide some discussion or insight into the specific engineering applications within this usable frequency band. Adding this perspective would be highly valuable for readers from industry.

Response 4:     Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. This research project originated from CE testing on vessels, with most components operating below 50MHz. Consequently, the engineering applications of this study primarily focus on crosstalk calculations and related simulations for CE testing. Please allow us to refrain from providing further descriptions of the relevant engineering applications in this document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors use multiconductor transmission line theory, incorporating the assumption of weak coupling, to study crosstalk in realistic complex cable assemblies. The developed formulation was applied to several configurations, and the results were compared to those obtained through measurements and simulations using the commercial software CST Cable Studio. While the results show good agreement for the simplest configuration, significant differences appear for the other two configurations above 150 MHz.

For a better understanding of this substantial work, a few questions need to be addressed:

1/ Equations (9) and (10) define the elements of the inductance matrix. For the capacitance matrix, I have not found information on how to obtain its elements, nor any recognized references. Equation (11) alone is insufficient. This point warrants further discussion. Furthermore, it is preferable to place equations (9), (10), and (11), as well as the discussions surrounding them, after the description of Figure 5.

2/ Elements L21 and C21 play an important role in crosstalk evaluation, according to equations (40)-(44). In the last two configurations, these elements vary depending on the xs position. The authors did not explain whether the integrations in (40)-(44) were performed numerically or analytically. If it was numerical integration, how was the discretization handled?

3/ The authors did not mention the calculation of Z01 and Z02, nor whether their values ​​are close to the 50 ohms used in the experimental setup.

4/ There is no information on how CST cable suite was used.

Apart from these issues, there are many errors in the text:

1/ Page 3, lines 88 and 89: references [13] and [14] should be [11] and [12]

2/ Page 3, line 93: "both domestically and internationally" should be removed

3/ Page 6, line 198: permeability is not "u"

4/ Page 6, line 199: the unit of permeability is "H/m" and not "C"

5/ Page 11: equation (38) is an error

6/ Page 13, line 374: "Equations 1-4" should be "Equations (40) – (43)"

7/ Page 17: Figure 15 (b) is the same as Figure 15 (a)

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors use multiconductor transmission line theory, incorporating the assumption of weak coupling, to study crosstalk in realistic complex cable assemblies. The developed formulation was applied to several configurations, and the results were compared to those obtained through measurements and simulations using the commercial software CST Cable Studio. While the results show good agreement for the simplest configuration, significant differences appear for the other two configurations above 150 MHz.

For a better understanding of this substantial work, a few questions need to be addressed:

Comments 1:    Equations (9) and (10) define the elements of the inductance matrix. For the capacitance matrix, I have not found information on how to obtain its elements, nor any recognized references. Equation (11) alone is insufficient. This point warrants further discussion. Furthermore, it is preferable to place equations (9), (10), and (11), as well as the discussions surrounding them, after the description of Figure 5.

Response 1:      Thank you very much for your suggestions. In response, we offer the following explanation and modifications: On page 7, lines 213, add equations (11) and (12) to describe the distributed capacitance matrix elements. Furthermore, the entire description of distributed parameters has been placed after Figure 5.

 

Comments 2:    Elements L21 and C21 play an important role in crosstalk evaluation, according to equations (40)-(44). In the last two configurations, these elements vary depending on the xs position. The authors did not explain whether the integrations in (40)-(44) were performed numerically or analytically. If it was numerical integration, how was the discretization handled?

Response 2:      Thank you for your suggestion. I have added the discrete equations (43) and (44) for the proximal response on page 13, line 355; and the discrete equations (47) and (48) for the distal response along with the corresponding explanation on page 14, line 368.

 

Comments 3:    The authors did not mention the calculation of Z01 and Z02, nor whether their values are close to the 50 ohms used in the experimental setup.

Response 3:      Thank you very much for your suggestion. In this paper, to better replicate the experimental scenario, both the simulation and analytical solution calculations employed a 50-ohm termination impedance. Therefore, no further detailed

 

Comments 4:    There is no information on how CST cable suite was used.

Response 4:      Thank you for your suggestion. The CST model construction is contrasted in the upper right corner of the experimental schematic diagram, though it may not be sufficiently prominent. I have added relevant annotations in Figures 12 (line 420), Figures 14 (line 437), and Figures 16 (line 454).

 

Comments 5:    Apart from these issues, there are many errors in the text:

1/ Page 3, lines 88 and 89: references [13] and [14] should be [11] and [12]

2/ Page 3, line 93: "both domestically and internationally" should be removed

3/ Page 6, line 198: permeability is not "u"

4/ Page 6, line 199: the unit of permeability is "H/m" and not "C"

5/ Page 11: equation (38) is an error

6/ Page 13, line 374: "Equations 1-4" should be "Equations (40) – (43)"

7/ Page 17: Figure 15 (b) is the same as Figure 15 (a)

Response 5:      Thank you very much for pointing out the error. I have made the following corrections:

1. Page 3, line 85: References [13] and [14] have been changed to [11] and [12].
2. Page 3, Line 97: "both domestically and internationally" is removed.
3. Page 6,line 186: Magnetic permeability has been corrected.
4. Page 6,line 187: The permeability units have been modified.
5. Page 11,line 318: The incorrect equation has been removed.
6. Page 13,line 347: The equation numbering has been revised.
7. Page 17: The Figure 15(b) has been corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed the prior comments and suggestions about the manuscript.