Additive Manufacturing for Electronics (AME): Prototyping High Surface Area Substrates to Improve Thermal Performance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is well-structured, logically clear, and rigorously verified through simulation and experimentation, possessing considerable academic value. The main focus of this article is a comparison of three distinct structures, utilizing 3D printing to assess their thermal performance. However, why were these three models chosen? Are there better and more reasonable models? Please elaborate. Additionally, is 3D printing absolutely necessary for the three models presented in the article? Compared to other forming methods, does 3D printing technology offer advantages in terms of cost and efficiency?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for the constructive feedback and the thorough evaluations provided during the review process, which have been instrumental in refining our work.

We have carefully considered each suggestion and addressed all the concerns raised. Attached to this submission, please find a comprehensive, point-by-point response document detailing the revisions made. For your convenience, all changes have been clearly marked within the manuscript text.

We trust that these amendments satisfy the requirements and we look forward to your further assessment.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents valuable integration of simulation and prototyping. Some modifications would make it even stronger.

• Introduction is excessively long and it reads like a textbook review. It should be condensed to maximum 3 pages. The focus should be on explaining the novelty of this manuscript and how it relates to literature.
• Formatting issue on line 436. “Error! Reference source not found.”
• Power values in simulation and experiment are not consistent. Please provide a reason or make them consistent.
• It’s not clear why additive manufacturing/3D printing is required for the presented geometries. The fin structures shown appear manufacturable using conventional ceramic molding and sintering techniques. The authors should clarify which geometric features are not achievable via conventional processes?
• The FEM simulations use bulk dense alumina properties, but the manuscript does not report measured density of the sintered parts, relative density, porosity characterization, thermal conductivity measurement or correction. Sintered ceramics typically retain residual porosity, which significantly reduces thermal conductivity. The authors should report density measurements and justify the material properties used in simulation.
• These parameters should be reported- thermal resistance values, effective thermal resistance reduction, convective heat transfer coefficient, etc.
• The tested heat flux 7 W/cm² seems relatively low compared to typical GaN or WBG device operation >50–100 W/cm². Please provide reasoning and discuss scalability, performance comparison with literature.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for the constructive feedback and the thorough evaluations provided during the review process, which have been instrumental in refining our work.

We have carefully considered each suggestion and addressed all the concerns raised. Attached to this submission, please find a comprehensive, point-by-point response document detailing the revisions made. For your convenience, all changes have been clearly marked within the manuscript text.

We trust that these amendments satisfy the requirements and we look forward to your further assessment.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work under analysis addresses the additive manufacturing process of power electronic components from the point of view of the heat transfer effect and respectively the reduction of the temperature in the hot spots of the components. This problem is topical and can ensure good results in the field under consideration and a good productivity of ceramic substrates with complex geometry difficult to manufacture by other technological processes.

From the analysis of the Title of the article and its summary it can be stated that the beginning part should be moved (Additive Manufacturing for Electronics (AME)) to the summary part and to the Introduction. I also think that the title could be completed with the one of additive manufacturing (Prototyping with additive manufacturing, would be a suggestion).

From the analysis of the summary part, it can be seen that it is broadly well structured. As a recommendation to increase its attractiveness, some comparative numerical values ​​resulting from the study should be taken.   Regarding the first introductory chapter, it is relatively well structured into subchapters, and the bibliography used in its writing (five works older than 10 years and seven older than five years out of 40 bibliographical references) can be seen to be in agreement with the parts analyzed in the introduction.   The second chapter is on the same line as the first, it would be necessary to correct the quality (dimensional dimensions of the connection parts, the components mentioned in the explanation part attached to the picture), and the resolution of Figure 1. Related to the second subchapter, I recommend that reference be made to the regime parameters used to create the areas (the adhesion part (number of layers - exposure time), supports if they were used (type of supports as well as section, exposure time, their size, etc.) and respectively in the printed part, this for the reproducibility of the process but also for a better understanding of the positioning in relation to the X-Y-Z axis system, I recommend a picture from the layer generation program with the previously mentioned elements. Also, nothing is specified about the program used to generate the structure and layers for the additive manufacturing process. Also for the second Figure, resolution corrections but also adaptation of the size of the numerical values ​​to that of the text and the size of the dimension of element I would recommend that a reference be made to the CAD program used and perhaps the drawings in Figure 2 be taken from it. In accordance with what has been mentioned, I recommend that Table 2 be correlated with the standard system for defining time values ​​(seconds and not milliseconds, millimeters not micrometers), etc., and the introduction of a column that is correlated with the previously mentioned additive manufacturing areas (base, supports, part) correlated with the generation layer area. Also, since the LED power is not changed, I would recommend that it be removed from the table and that the other elements necessary for generating layers be introduced in the exposure process - layer generation.                      

The third chapter presents several negative aspects that I recommend to be corrected (Figures 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13), unclear and incomplete (lack of information related to the maximum and minimum temperature values ​​and their locations, the impossibility of determining the temperature range on the scale attached to the pictures (much smaller than the text of the analyzed document), errors in completing the information in the text, see line 436, etc. I also recommend remaking the graphs with the units of measurement according to ISO and not as they were made, for example Figure 12, but also increasing their contrast.  

The same observation to Figures in the discussion part. Figures 16, 17, mast be modified as the recommendation made  in the previous chapter. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for the constructive feedback and the thorough evaluations provided during the review process, which have been instrumental in refining our work.

We have carefully considered each suggestion and addressed all the concerns raised. Attached to this submission, please find a comprehensive, point-by-point response document detailing the revisions made. For your convenience, all changes have been clearly marked within the manuscript text.

We trust that these amendments satisfy the requirements and we look forward to your further assessment.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf