A Parametric Conducted Emission Modeling Method of a Switching Model Power Supply (SMPS) Chip by a Developed Vector Fitting Algorithm
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The main problems of this paper are the scientific novelty and quality of presentation. It's too difficult to understand the scientific novelty. It is very close to rejection!
Also, the paper has some drawbacks:
1. The introduction of the paper should be improved. In order to explain more clearly the problem addressed in the paper, the introduction should be modified as follows. Section 1 (Introduction) should be subdivided into five brief Subsections: 1.1) Background, 1.2) Formulation of the Problem of Interest for this Investigation, 1.3) Literature Survey, 1.4) Scope and Contribution of this Study, 1.5) Organization of the Paper. New material should be concisely added in all these subsections. In Subsection 1.1, general information about the problem addressed in this paper should be presented. In Subsection 1.2, the authors should illustrate the challenges of the research that they are discussing in the paper. In Subsection 1.3, a detailed literature survey on the problem addressed in the paper should be provided for the benefit of the reader that may be not familiar with the problem investigated in the paper. In Subsection 1.4, the differences between the method proposed in the paper with respect to the results already published in the literature should be briefly explained. In Subsection 1.5, the organization of the paper should be concisely reported. The material reported in the current version of the paper can be included in Subsections 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4.
2. Paper has problems with references. Why is most of them given in the text of a small font size?
3. Figure 7 has problem with caption.
4. Paper has two Figures 11 on page 10!
5. Error in the link to Figure 10 on line 276. There should be Figure 13.
6. Quality of Figure 13 and its caption must be improved.
7. Does Figure 14 present error or errors?
8. Paper should be proofreaded. For example, what is "jiontly" in line 290?
9. Presentation of Table 2 should be improved.
10. We can't see the comparision of the forecast errors with other methods in the paper. Discussion section is very poor. It must be expanded.
11. What are two dots after the list of authors in references 1, 2, 4, 19, 21?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
The authors wish to thank the reviewer for hiscomments and the many hints they provided. A detailed response to theremarks/suggestions is reported in the following. We have tried to meet all the requests made by the reviewers and have made revision in the paper.
In the revised version of the manuscript, the modified parts have been underlined with red colourand the removed text has been stricken through with blue colour.
Point 0:The main problems of this paper are the scientific novelty and quality of presentation. It's too difficult to understand the scientific novelty. It is very close to rejection!
Response 0: Thank you for the reviewer’s constructive advices on this paper. We are sorry that have not stated our work clearly. Its scientific novelty lies as follow. The common ICEM modelling method cannot meet the SMPS chip CE predicting requirements because of its limitations on testing method and other factors. According to ‘Basic emission waveform theory’, the paper found the relationship between SMPS chip CE characteristics and its peripheral circuit parameter settings. And a parametric conduction emission modelling method was proposed. Furthermore, due to the change of testing method, common algorithms such as vector fitting cannot be directly applied in the model. Therefore, a developed vector fitting algorithm is proposed to complete the modelling process.
To make the presentation more clearly, in the revised vision the authors divided the second section in the original manuscript into two sections, which introduce the measurement configuration and parametric modelling method separately.
Point 1:The introduction of the paper should be improved. In order to explain more clearly the problem addressed in the paper, the introduction should be modified as follows. Section 1 (Introduction) should be subdivided into five brief Subsections: 1.1) Background, 1.2) Formulation of the Problem of Interest for this Investigation, 1.3) Literature Survey, 1.4) Scope and Contribution of this Study, 1.5) Organization of the Paper. New material should be concisely added in all these subsections. In Subsection 1.1, general information about the problem addressed in this paper should be presented. In Subsection 1.2, the authors should illustrate the challenges of the research that they are discussing in the paper. In Subsection 1.3, a detailed literature survey on the problem addressed in the paper should be provided for the benefit of the reader that may be not familiar with the problem investigated in the paper. In Subsection 1.4, the differences between the method proposed in the paper with respect to the results already published in the literature should be briefly explained. In Subsection 1.5, the organization of the paper should be concisely reported. The material reported in the current version of the paper can be included in Subsections 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4.
Response 1:Thank you for the reviewer’s constructive advices on introduction statement.According to the reviewer's comments, the author re-edited the contents of the Introduction section. In the revised vision, the contents of the manuscript are divided into 3 subsections, and 2 new subsections of background and organization are added as 1.1 and 1.5.
Point 2:Paper has problems with references. Why is most of them given in the text of a small font size?
Response 2:Thank you for this comment, and we agree with what the reviewer pointed out.The author has proofread the format of all references cited, and has been adjusted them into the normal font size.
Point 3:Figure 7 has problem with caption.
Response 3:Thank you for this remark.The author has re-edited the caption of figure 7 in the revised vision.
Point 4:Paper has two Figures 11 on page 10!
Response 4:Thank you for this remark.The author has completed proofreading and modification of the figures’ serial number.
Point 5:Error in the link to Figure 10 on line 276. There should be Figure 13.
Response 5:Thank you for this remark.The author has proofread and modified figures and tables cited in the revised vision.
Point 6:Quality of Figure 13 and its caption must be improved.
Response 6:Thank you for this remark.Some of the figures in the manuscript are in the jpge format, which causes the image to degrade. In the revised vision, the author has changed all test/simulation results into esp format to ensure clarity.
Point 7:Does Figure 14 present error or errors?
Response 7:Thank you for this remark. The author has modified the caption of Figure 14 to match the Y-label in the figure.
Point 8:Paper should be proofreaded. For example, what is "jiontly" in line 290?
Response 8:Thank you for this comment, and we agree with what the reviewer pointed out.The author has proofread the spelling and grammatical errors as much as possible.
Point 9:Presentation of Table 2 should be improved.
Response 9:Thank you for this remark.Table 2 mainly shows the port name, parameter settings and functional description of the simulated PCB. The authors have improved the expression of the port's functional description and re-edited its presentation.
Point 10:We can't see the comparison of the forecast errors with other methods in the paper. Discussion section is very poor. It must be expanded.
Response 10:Thank you for this comment, and we agree with what the reviewer pointed out.The authors have added a set of comparative tests in Subsection 4.2, and try to discuss the effectiveness and practicability of the proposed method.
Point 11:What are two dots after the list of authors in references 1, 2, 4, 19, 21?
Response 11:Thank you for this comment. The author has proofread and modified the reference format in the revised vision.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
A well written paper presenting a modeling method to establish a parametric-conducted emission model of a SMPS chip through a developed vector-fitting algorithm. It would be better if acronyms could be explained as far as they apeared in the document, such as ICEM (Integrated Circuit Electromagnetic Modeling) as well as ICIA and ICPDN. Some equations need to be checked (ie. integral symbol is missing)after the conversion to pdf. In my opinion, the article is suitable for publication.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
The authors wish to thank the reviewer for hiscomments and the many hints they provided. A detailed response to theremarks/suggestions is reported in the following. We have tried to meet all the requests made by the reviewers and have made revision in the paper.
In the revised version of the manuscript, the modified parts have been underlined with red colourand the removed text has been stricken through with blue colour.
Point 1:A well written paper presenting a modelling method to establish a parametric-conducted emission model of a SMPS chip through a developed vector-fitting algorithm. It would be better if acronyms could be explained as far as they appeared in the document, such as ICEM (Integrated Circuit Electromagnetic Modelling) as well as ICIA and ICPDN.
Response 1: Thank you for the reviewer’s positive evaluation of this work and constructive advices on this paper.In the past week, the author has proofread the full text, except for the ‘SMPS’ in the title, all acronyms are explained when they first appeared.Includes ICEM, ICIA, and ICPDN in the Abstract.
Point 2:Some equations need to be checked (ie. integral symbol is missing) after the conversion to pdf.In my opinion, the article is suitable for publication.
Response 2:Thank you for this suggestion. After the manuscript is uploaded, the website system automatically converts it into pdf, which causes some formulas to be unreadable. In the revised version, the author changed equations format and uploaded the pdf file separately to avoid the above problem.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has become more understandable, but there are still drawbacks:
In itroduction it's not need to use numbers of Subsections. I wrote about semantic Subsections.
The caption of Figure 14 should be at the same page with the figure.
What is "Fourier transformation" on line 157? Fourier transform!!!
Quality of Figure 9 must be improved (for example, word "after").
Some of references (27, 34) are still in the small font size.
And the main problem of this paper now. In part 4.2 the athors write about frequency band from 20 kHz to 100 MHz. On the Figure 23 we can see that for the board 2 approximately to the middle of this frequency band the proposed method and ICEM have the same parameters. I think that the authors should clarify this fact. Also, it'll be better to add one more board with different parameters to clarify the results.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
The authors wish to thank the reviewer for hiscomments and the many hints they provided. A detailed response to theremarks/suggestions is reported in the following. We have tried to meet all the requests made by the reviewers and have made revision in the paper.
In the revised version of the manuscript, the modified parts have been underlined with red colourand the removed text has been stricken through with blue colour.In order to show the distinctions, all the track changes in this revision have been highlighted.
Point 1:The paper has become more understandable, but there are still drawbacks:
In introduction it's not needs to use numbers of Subsections. I wrote about semantic Subsections.
Response 1:Thank you for the reviewer’s positive evaluation of this work and constructive advices on this paper. We agree with what the reviewer pointed out for introduction section.We removed the number and captions of the subsections in the revised vision.
Point 2:The caption of Figure 14 should be at the same page with the figure.
Response 2:Thank you for this comment. I guess the versionprovidedfor you is with “Track Changes” function, so that thedeleted parts are still occupying the character positions. Therefore, the layout of the “Track Changes” vision is different from final vision. The authors have proofread them at the same page in the final vision.
Point 3:What is "Fourier transformation" on line 157? Fourier transform!!!
Response 3:Thank you for this comment, and we agree with what the reviewer pointed out. The authors have modified this spelling and proofread the spelling and grammatical errors as much as possible.
Point 4:Quality of Figure 9 must be improved (for example, word "after").
Response 4:Thank you for this remark. This figure is cited from Reference [27], so the authors maintained its original state in the manuscript. In the revised version, the authors have redrawn it.
Point 5:Some of references (27, 34) are still in the small font size.
Response 5:Thank you for this comment, and we agree with what the reviewer pointed out. The authors have modified them into the normal font size.
Point 6:And the main problem of this paper now. In part 4.2 the athors write about frequency band from 20 kHz to 100 MHz. On the Figure 23 we can see that for the board 2 approximately to the middle of this frequency band the proposed method and ICEM have the same parameters. I think that the authors should clarify this fact.
Response 6:Thank you for this remark.The authors have added a description part of the test results in the revised vision.
Point 7:Also, it'll be better to add one more board with different parameters to clarify the results.
Response 7:Thank you for this remark. An additional comparison board with different parameters has been added in the revised vision.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I think that the paper can be accepted in present form.
